PA 

891 

A2 

W56 

1909 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    D2fl    in 


Xlbe  TDlniversttp  of  Cbtcago 

FOUNDED  BV  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


FHE  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE  BOOK 
OF  ACTS 


A  DISSERTATION 

UBMITTED  TO  THE   FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY    SCHOOL 

IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  biblical  greek) 


BY 

CHARLES  BRAY  WILLIAMS 


I 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


i*    »    l\  >»:..,f,   *  S     I     :'S     'A    /     .f 

•            '      r*      J.     f  -      .:     V      *.    /4 

■■■■    ;'"   ■>■:•.  ,'      -  ■'■',  ?-:■   -•    :''     S,  . 

.>    •'    '  .-.       .■    :■  i 

*■..*;>    '.':.■  ■  .:■.  .'.  .--,>,»*.;* 

p  '■■  >■       '•    t  j   >'.*  i 

•    ".      .       .  ■.     ■    *.    ■;     -    >    .?    ,.    *    <; 

■  \  :i  .t  i  ?  ;•    •    v  ;    *   .'-  ■?• 


I  *   $ 


.  ■?.  3 


'•  >  ^  .;  >   "  -   ,*  ■;■  -:  :-  i  .;  / 


-     •<>   ■.       .?     .'    <     V     Z     w     -r<     :-    .<      i     *    ■ 

'     ■.  \j    ■    ,     ?   .    v   >   1   >>■ 


'AMJ 


-.,  '■'   ,.   a  ■;    *    ;    ;i  '4    • 
^  *   -   »   ..»  J    -r   s    »  ';    „■   ,} 

■ 


- 


Zbc  VlntvevBity  of  Cbicago 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE  BOOK 
OF  ACTS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE   FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY    SCHOOL 

IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  biblical  greek) 


BY 

CHARLES  BRAY  WILLIAMS 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


Copyright  1909  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  March  1909 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A. 


Acknowledgment  is  clue  to  Professors  Ernest  D.  Burton,  Clyde  W. 
Votaw,  and  Edgar  J.  Goodspeed  for  their  valuable  suggestions  and  criti- 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction vii 

Part  I 
Facts  Concerning  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 

Chapter  I.     The  Categories  of  the  Participle i 

Chapter  II.     A  Comparative  Study  of  Greek  Participles      ...  7 

Chapter  III.  Enumeration  of  the  Participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts  .  13 
Chapter  IV.     A  Comparison  of  Participles  in  Other  New  Testament 

Books 21 

Chapter  V.     Particles  with  Participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts        .      .  25 

Chapter  VI.     The  Periphrastic  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts     .      .  28 

Chapter  VII.  The  Genitive  Absolute  in  the  Book  of  Acts  ...  31 
Chapter  VIII.     The  Function  of  the  Tense  in  the  Participle  in  the 

Book  of  Acts 34 

Chapter  IX.     A  Complete  Classification  of  the  Participles  in  the 

Book  of  Acts 36 

Part  II 

Inferences  from  the  Above  Facts  Concerning  the  Participle  hi  the 
Book  of  Acts 

Chapter  X.  The  Nature  of  the  Greek  in  the  Book  of  Acts  ...  45 
Chapter  XL     The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Seen  in  the  Light  of  the 

Participle 49 

Chapter  XII.     The  Sources  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Seen  in  the  Light  of 

Participial  Usage 57 

Chapter  XIII.     The  Authorship  of  the  Book  of  Acts  in  the  Light 

of  Participial  Usage 68 

Chapter  XIV.     The  Composition  of  the  Addresses  in  the  Book  of 

Acts  in  the  Light  of  Participial  Usage 73 

Bibliography 77 


INTRODUCTION 

A  casual  reading  impresses  the  Greek  student  with  the  great  number 
and  striking  variety  of  participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  A  critical  reading 
reveals  many  facts  of  importance  to  the  New  Testament  grammarian  and 
theologian.  To  ascertain  these  facts  and  to  determine  their  bearing  on  the 
main  problems  connected  with  the  Book  of  Acts  is  the  purpose  of  this 
treatise. 

The  WH  text  is  the  basis  of  our  investigations.  Where  this  text  is  in 
doubt  about  the  reading  we  shall  indicate  it,  if  it  bears  on  the  use  of  the 
participle.  If  weighty  MSS  favor  another  reading  than  WH  we  shall 
mention  it. 


vii 


PART  I 

FACTS  CONCERNING  THE  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE   BOOK 
OF  ACTS 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  CATEGORIES  OF  THE  PARTICIPLE 
Before  we  can  deal  intelligently  with  the  participles  in  Acts  we  must 
decide  on  some  principles  of  classification  and  adopt  a  definite  classifi- 
cation and  terminology  for  our  use  in  this  treatise.     The  categories  of  some 
leading  Greek  grammarians  will  first  be  examined. 

Sec.  i.    Kuehner's  Classification 

I.  Complementary  participles  used  with  verbs  of  perceiving,  showing, 
expressing   the   emotions,   of   enduring,    beginning,   continuing,   ceasing, 

€^w,  Tvy^avo),  XavOdva),  etc. 

II.  Attributive,  expressing  an  attributive  qualification  of  substantives 
requiring  (in  English)  a  participle  after  the  substantive,  or  equivalent  to  a 
relative  clause. 

III.  Participles  used  to  express  adverbial  qualification  of  the  principal 
action. 

Sec.  2.    Goodwin's  Classification 

I.  Attributive.  Here  he  distinguishes  the  use  of  the  participle  as  attrib- 
utive adjective,  as  substantive  (usually  with  the  article),  and  as  predicate 
adjective. 

II.  Circumstantial,  expressing  time,  means,  manner,  cause,  condition, 
concession,  etc. 

III.  Supplementary — not  in  indirect  discourse  and  also  in  indirect 
discourse. 

Sec.  3.    Burton's  Classification 

I.  The  adjective  participle — attributive  and  predicative. 

II.  The  adverbial,  equivalent  to  clauses  of  time,  cause,  condition, 
concession,  etc. 

III.  The  substantive,  used  as  part  of  subject,  object,  or  limiting  genitive. 
This  class  corresponds  to  Goodwin's  supplementary  class. 


2  the  participle  in  the  book  of  acts 

Sec.  4.    Jannaris'  Classification 

He  says  there  are  two  general  uses  and  so  two  general  classes: 

I.  The  adjectival  participle,  divided  into  the  attributive  which  is  often 
equivalent  to  a  relative  clause,  and  the  predicative  participle  which  like 
a  predicate  "supplements  the  notion  of  certain  incomplete  or  auxiliary 
verbs."  The  latter  is  the  supplementary  class  of  Kuehner  and  Goodwin, 
the  substantive  class  of  Burton. 

II.  The  adverbial  participle,  expressing  time,  cause,  condition,  con- 
cession, etc. 

Sec.  5.    Winer's  Classification 

He  did  not  give  any  definite  classification,  but  speaks  of: 

I.  Participles  expressing  a  complement  to  a  principal  sentence  and 
illustrates  this  class  with  a-rrrjXdev  Xv-rrov/Aevos,  which  is  almost  surely  an 
adverbial  participle  of  manner. 

II.  Participles  expressing  subordinate  sentences,  illustrating  this  class 
with  irav  KXrjfxa  /xr]  cjtepov  and  pevov  o-ol  1/i.evev,  one  of  which  examples  is 
attributive  and  the  other  adverbial  (according  to  the  terminology  of  Kueh- 
ner, Goodwin,  and  Burton). 

III.  Participles  used  as  a  complement,  or  predicatively,  illustrating  this 
class  with  €7re/x.eve  Kpowv,  etc.  His  first  two  classes  are  not  exclusive  and 
hence  his  classification  is  not  logical. 

Sec.  6.    Blass's  Classification 

He  makes  only  two  classes: 

I.  Participles  as  attributive.  But  he  makes  this  class  include  the 
attributive  and  supplementary  of  Goodwin. 

II.  Participles  expressing  an  additional  clause,  corresponding  to  the 
adverbial  or  circumstantial  class  of  Goodwin  or  Burton. 

Sec.  7.     Hadley  and  Allen's  Classification 

I.  Attributive,  the  participle  often  being  substantive  as  well  as  adjec- 
tival. 

II.  Predicate-participles  divided  into  the  subclasses: 

1.  Circumstantial,  expressing  time,  means,  manner,  cause,  etc. 

2.  Supplementary. 

Babbitt,  who  had  begun  his  Greek  grammar  in  partnership  with  Allen 
before  the  latter's  death,  follows,  not  Hadley  and  Allen's,  but  Goodwin's, 
classification. 


CATEGORIES   OF   THE   PARTICIPLE  3 

Sec.  8.     Delbruck-Brugmann's  Classification 

They  discuss,  but  not  with  unreserved  approval,  Classen's  classifica- 
tion: 

I.  The  participle  of  external  relation. 

II.  The  adverbial  participle. 

III.  The  objective  participle. 

They  make  the  "time-character"  of  the  participle  the  basis  of  division, 
but  surely  the  time  element  in  the  participle  does  not  furnish  the  best 
basis  of  classification. 

Sec.  9.     Viteau's  Classification 

Viteau  does  not  show  the  relation  of  the  great  classes  of  the  participle, 
but  merely  discusses  twelve  subclasses:  The  participle  of  distinctive 
complement  (used  with  the  article  to  characterize  a  person  or  thing);  the 
participle  of  attributive  complement  (used  without  the  article  to  denote 
the  quality  or  manner  of  being  or  transient  action) ;  the  explicative  participle 
(equivalent  to  a  relative  proposition);  the  final  participle  (purpose  and 
consequence);  the  causal;  the  conditional  and  concessive;  the  temporal; 
the  attributive  with  particles;  the  periphrastic;  the  attributive  connected 
with  the  subject  (with  ™yxava>,  iruvo/uat,  etc.) ;  attributive  connected  with  the 
object  (with  verbs  of  seeing,  knowing,  etc.);  the  independent  participle 
(genitive,  accusative,  and  nominative  absolute). 

Sec.  10.    Some  General  Criticisms  on  These  Categories 

We  must  not  stop  to  go  too  far  into  details,  and  yet  we  must  make  some 
criticism  on  these  classifications. 

First,  there  seems  to  be  naturally  a  threefold  classification  of  Greek 
participles,  as  is  recognized  by  Kuehner,  Goodwin,  Burton,  Babbitt, 
Classen,  etc.  It  scarcely  seems  logical  to  throw  together  the  first  and  third 
classes,  as  did  Blass  and  Jannaris,  nor  is  it  any  more  natural  to  combine  the 
second  and  third  classes,  as  did  Hadley  and  Allen.  The  participle  illus- 
trated by  71-oAis  oUov/jLevr)  is  different  in  nature  from  that  in  i\6wv  ciSov, 
and  it  seems  equally  as  different  in  function  from  that  in  the  sentence 
bpaw  avTov  €p\o^vov.  In  the  first  example  the  function  of  the  participle 
is  to  ascribe  a  state,  and  so  a  characteristic,  to  ttoAis,  just  as  koXt)  would  do 
in  7roAis  KaXrj,  In  the  second  example  l\6<av  clearly  takes  the  place  of  a 
subordinate  clause  and  modifies  the  action  of  elSov,  while  ipxopzvov  in  the 
third  example  is  closely  connected  with  the  object,  avrov,  and  expresses 
an  additional  action.  The  grammatical  functions  of  the  participles  in 
these  three  examples  are  essentially  different.     Hence,  any  logical  classi- 


4  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS 

fication  of  participles  must  include  three  classes  and  must  follow  closely 
the  above  lines  of  cleavage. 

Secondly,  the  terminology  used  in  describing  the  three  classes  is  a  vital 
point  in  a  discussion  of  the  participle.  We  regard  the  office  of  the  parti- 
ciple in  the  sentence  as  the  proper  basis  on  which  to  make  a  logical  classi- 
fication. So  let  us  take  the  three  examples  above  and  determine  what  is 
the  chief  function  of  the  participle  in  each  sentence. 

LTdAi?  olKov/xevrj  may  mean  an  inhabited  city,  or  a  city  (is)  inhabited, 
or  a  city  that  is  inhabited,  or  17  oiKovfiivr]  means  the  (inhabited)  world. 
That  is,  the  participle  is  used  attributively  (or  relatively),  predicatively, 
and  substantively.  But  in  each  case  the  participle  ascribes  to  the  sub- 
stantive a  state  of  action  which  involves  also  a  characteristic.  The  city  in 
question  is  in  an  inhabited  state  and  possesses  the  characteristic  of  being 
inhabited.  Then  why  not  call  this  class  of  participles  "ascriptive,"  which 
is  a  term  comprehensive  enough  to  include  all  varieties  of  use  found  in  this 
class  ?  That  is,  the  first  class  of  participles  might  well  be  denominated 
ascriptive  to  include  all  participles  which  ascribe  to  a  substantive  expressed 
or  implied  a  state  growing  out  of  an  action,  a  state  involving  also  a  char- 
acteristic. 

The  objection  to  the  term  attributive  to  denominate  this  class  is  that  it 
does  not  cover  all  the  uses  of  the  class  (e.g.,  the  predicative  and  sub- 
stantive uses)  and  is  also  used  by  most  grammarians  to  refer  to  a  subclass 
in  the  main  class.  Of  course,  this  is  illogical,  and  on  the  whole  the  term 
ascriptive  is  more  fitting  than  attributive  to  denominate  the  first  category 
of  participles. 

As  to  the  function  of  the  participle  in  i\du>v  elSov  it  evidently  takes  the 
place  of  a  dependent  clause — when  I  came,  because  I  came,  etc.  Because 
such  clauses  modify  like  an  adverb  the  principal  verb  eTSov,  this  participle 
is  called  by  Burton,  Jannaris,  etc.,  the  adverbial  participle.  But  it  is 
objectionable  to  call  participles  by  the  names  of  parts  of  speech.  Yet,  on 
the  whole,  it  is  better  to  call  this  class  adverbial  than  circumstantial,  since 
all.  participles  express  a  circumstance  in  one  sense  or  another.  Nor  is  it 
fitting  to  denominate  this  class  predicative,  as  do  Hadley  and  Allen,  because 
this  term  does  not  distinguish  it  from  the  third  class,  nor  from  part  of  the 
first  class. 

As  to  the  function  of  the  third  participle  ipxop-evov,  in  bpdw  airov  epxo- 
/aevov,  it  is  clear  that  airov  ipxop.evov  together  constitutes  the  direct  object  of 
bpd<i>,  just  as  dvdpwrrov  is  the  direct  object  of  6pda>  dvOpw-n-ov.  But  this  is  not 
all  the  participle  does  in  this  sentence.  It  helps  to  express  an  action  which 
is  closely  connected  with  airov.     Hence,  it  is  not  true  to  all  the  facts  to 


CATEGORIES    OF   THE    PARTICIPLE  5 

call  it  a  substantive  participle,  as  does  Burton,  because  it  helps  complete 
an  action  in  addition  to  its  forming  part  of  the  direct  object  of  the  verb. 

Take  two  other  examples  of  this  third  class  which  are  apparently  some- 
what different  as  to  the  function  of  the  participle:  iiravaaro  Xeymv,  he 
ceased  speaking.  Does  the  participle  express  a  complement  to  an  object, 
as  in  the  former  example  ?  Before  answering  this  question  let  us  look  at 
a  sentence  with  the  active  of  this  verb:  lirava-tv  avrbv  Xiyovra,  he  stopped 
him  (from)  speaking.  Here  the  participle  evidently  is  a  part  of  the  object. 
Then  does  the  participle  change  its  function,  because  the  principal  verb 
has  changed  its  voice  ?  It  is  not  probable  that  such  is  the  case,  for  iiravaaro 
\eywv  really  means,  he  stopped  himself  (from)  speaking.  Hence,  the 
function  of  the  participle  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  former  example,  that  is, 
a  part  of  the  object  but  expressing  an  additional  action. 

In  the  sentence,  ot8e  Sikcuos  w,  he  knows  that  he  is  right,  does  the 
participle  constitute  a  part  of  the  object  as  in  the  other  examples  ?  Surely 
it  does,  for  it  means,  he  knows  the  (fact  of)  his  being  right. 

Then  it  seems  more  fitting  to  call  the  third  class  complementary  rather 
than  substantive.  It  is  also  better  to  use  the  term  complementary  than  the 
term  supplementary,  because  the  latter  term  expresses  an  addition  that 
may  not  be  so  vitally  connected  with  what  goes  before,  while  the  term  com- 
plementary means  that  which  helps  to  complete  what  goes  before  and  so 
is  vitally  connected  with  it.  This  is  precisely  what  the  participle  in  the 
third  class  does. 

Sec.  11.  Terminology  Adopted  for  This  Treatise 

1.  The  ascriptive  participle,  divided  further  into: 

t.  The  attributive,  e.g.,  6  rpiyuv  aydpuiros,  the  running  man,  or  the 
man  who  runs. 

2.  The  predicative,  e.g.,  6  SiSao-KttAos  ea-ri  SiSao-Kwv,  the  teacher  is 
teaching. 

3.  The  substantive,  where  the  substantive  is  implied  and  the  participle 
has  a  substantive  meaning,  e.g.,  rj  oiKovixevr),  the  (inhabited)  world; 
6  ino-Tevwv,  the  believer. 

II.  The  adverbial  participle,  which  is  usually  equivalent  to  a  subordi- 
nate clause,  but  sometimes  equivalent  to  a  phrase  of  manner  or  means. 
Often  the  adverbial  participial  clause  is  only  general  in  its  nature  and  does 
not  make  prominent  the  relation  of  the  subordinate  clause  to  the  principal 
sentence.  Again  the  adverbial  participle,  by  the  aid  of  the  context,  par- 
ticularizes the  relation  of  the  subordinate  clause  to  the  principal  sentence 
and  then  we  have  adverbial  participles  of  time,  cause,  condition,  concession, 


6  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

etc.  Hence,  we  designate  the  subclasses  of  adverbials  as  general,  temporal, 
causal,  those  of  manner  or  means,  concession,  condition,  and  purpose. 

III.  The  complementary  participle,  which  is  used  with  verbs  of  per- 
ceiving, emotion,  beginning,  continuing,  ceasing,  etc.  There  are  two 
subclasses : 

i.  The  objective  complementary  participle  in  which  the  participle 
belongs  to  an  object  other  than  the  subject  of  the  clause:  e.  g.,  r/Kovcra 
avrov  XuXovvtos,  I  heard  him  speaking;  rjKOvaa  to  0-Tpa.Tev/j.a  ipxop-evov, 
I  heard  that  the  army  was  coming. 

2.  The  subjective  complementary  participle  in  which  the  action  belongs 
to  an  object  unexpressed  because  identical  with  the  subject  of  the  clause: 
e.  g.,  i-nravaaTo  Ae'yw,  he  ceased  speaking;  oTSe  6Ykcuos  w,  he  knows  that 
he  is  right. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  John  4:39  the  complementary  participle  is 
used  as  a  limiting  genitive.  The  same  construction  is  found  in  Heb.  8:9, 
but  is  rare  in  general  Greek  literature  and  does  not  occur  in  the  Book  of 
Acts. 

The  above  subclasses  may  be  divided  further  into  complementary 
participles  not  in  indirect  discourse  and  those  in  indirect  discourse. 


CHAPTER  II 

A  COMPARATIVE  STUDY  OF  GREEK  PARTICIPLES 
Sec.  12 

The  student  of  New  Testament  participles  naturally  asks,  What  is  the 
use  of  the  participle  in  other  Greek  literature  ?  Is  there  an  evolution  of 
participial  usage  ? 

Three  divisions  of  Greek  literature  outside  the  New  Testament,  cover- 
ing the  period  from  Homer  to  Plutarch,  are  studied:  the  Early  Greek 
literature  from  Homer  to  Plato,  the  Late,  or  kolvtj,  Greek  literature  from 
Polybius  to  Plutarch,  and  the  documentary  papyri. 

A  thousand  lines  in  each  author  have  been  examined,  since  we  deem 
this  a  sufficient  amount  to  let  any  author  exhibit  his  participial  usage.  In 
the  papyri  we  take  documentary  fragments  amounting  in  all  to  one  thousand 
lines.  We  have  adopted  as  our  standard  page  in  this  treatise  the  page  of 
thirty  lines,  since  this  is  about  the  average  page  in  WH  edition  of  the 
New  Testament. 

Sec.  13.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Homer  (ca.  950-850  b.  c.) 
(Iliad,  Book  I,  ed.  Seymour,  1903) 
In  a  thousand  lines  of  Homer's  Iliad  occur  only  272  participles,  an 
average  of  8£  per  page.     Thirty-nine  of  these  (14^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
214  (78$  per  cent.)  adverbial;    10  (ca.  7  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  14.  The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Sophocles  (d.  ca.  433  b.  c.) 
(Antigone,  ed.  D'Ooge,  1890;  Oed.  Tyr.,  ed.  Earle,  1901) 
One  thousand  lines  from  Antigone  and  Oedipus  Tyrannus  together 
contain  301  participles,  an  average  of  a  little  over  9  per  page.  Seventy- 
eight  of  these  (25!  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  175  (58^  per  cent.)  adverbial; 
48  (about  16  per  cent.)  complementary.  There  are  fewer  participles  in 
Oedipus  Tyrannus  than  in  Antigone  in  the  ratio  of  145  to  156.  There 
are  also  fewer  complementary  participles  in  Oedipus  Tyrannus  than  in 
Antigone  in  the  ratio  of  22  to  26. 

Sec.  15.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Herodotus  (d.  ca.  425  b.  c.) 
(Book  I,  ed.  Sayce,  1883) 
One  thousand  lines  contain  585  participles,  an  average  of  17^  per 
page.     One  hundred  forty-one  of   these  (24  ^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
414  (70!  per  cent.)  adverbial;  30  (5^  per  cent.)  complementary. 

7 


8  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

Sec.  16.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Thucydides  (d.  ca.  400  b.  c.) 
(From  Sicilian  Expedition,  ed.  Frost,  1896) 
In  one  thousand  lines  occur  432  participles,  an  average  of  nearly  13 
per  page.     Ninety-six  of  these  (22!  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;    313  (72$ 
per  cent.)  adverbial;   23  (5^  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  17.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Xenophon  (d.  after  355  b.  c.) 
(Anab.,  Book  I,  ed.  Kelsey  and  Zenos  after  text  of  Cobet) 
One  thousand  lines  contain  413  participles,  an  average  of  12^  per  page. 
One  hundred  seventeen  of  these  (ca.  28 J  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;    272 
(ca.  65^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  24  (nearly  6  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  18.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Plato  (d.  347  b.  c.) 

(Gorgias,  ed.  Lodge,  1896;  Republic,  ed.  Hermann-Teubner, 

1896;   Laws,  ed.  Hermann-Teubner,  1899) 

One  thousand  lines  (one-third  from  each  of  the  above  works)  contain 

339  participles,  an  average  of  10J  per  page.     One  hundred  fifty-two  of 

these  (45 J  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;    183  (50!  per  cent.)  adverbial;    17 

(4f  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  19.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Demosthenes  (d.  322  b.  c.) 
(Olynthiacs  A  and  B,  ed.  Sandys,  1898) 
In  one  thousand  lines  occur  358  participles,  an  average  of  10J  per  page. 
One  hundred  forty  of  these  (37^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;    185  (nearly 
5i§  per  cent.)  adverbial;   33  (ca.  nj  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  20.  The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  the  Septuagint  (ca.  280  f .  ?) 
In  one  thousand  lines  from  Exod.,  chaps.  1-7,  Deut.,  chaps.  28-31 
(discourse,  to  even  up  the  narrative,  since  we  find  both  discourse  and  narra- 
tive in  the  Book  of  Acts),  and  from  Judg.,  chaps.  1-5,  we  find  only  205 
participles,  an  average  of  ca.  6£  per  page.  Most  of  them,  that  is,  160 
(78  per  cent.),  are  ascriptive.  Only  41  (20  per  cent.)  are  adverbial,  while 
only  about  2  per  cent,  are  complementary. 

Of  course,  this  is  simply  translation  Greek  and  the  style  is  largely 
influenced  by  the  Hebrew.  A  little  less  than  one-half  of  the  participles  in 
the  Septuagint  translate  participles  in  the  Hebrew,  that  is,  over  half  of 
the  participles  in  the  Septuagint  translate  something  else  (infinitive  abso- 
lute, infinitive  construct,  or  a  finite  verb).  Yet,  a  little  over  one-half  of  the 
participles  in  the  Hebrew  are  not  translated  by  participles  in  the  Septua- 
gint, some  being  translated  by  substantives  and  some  by  finite  verbs.  It  is 
especially  to  be  observed  that  eighteen  of  the  adverbials  in  the  Septuagint 


COMPARATIVE    STUDY   OF    GREEK    PARTICIPLES  9 

translate  the  Hebrew  infinitive  construct  "ibtfb .  Yet,  many  times  in  the 
Septuagint  Xe'ywv,  or  Ae'yovTes,  occurs  where  the  infinitive  construct  of  the 
verb  of  saying  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew. 

All  the  participles  in  Hebrew  are  ascriptive  or  used  for  the  finite  verb 
to  express  continuous  action  (so  Harper).  The  Hebrews  knew  not  the 
adverbial  use  of  the  participle  until  they  learned  it  from  Greek-speaking 
peoples.  The  forty-one  cases  of  the  adverbial,  and  the  four  cases  of  the 
complementary,  participles  in  the  Septuagint  show  how  the  translators 
were  influenced  by  Hellenism  (as  to  grammatical  constructions  at  least). 

Sec.  21.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Polybius  (d.  ca.  125  b.  c.) 
(Hist.,  ed.  Buttner-Wobst  after  L.  Dindorfio) 
One  thousand  lines  contain  593  participles,  an  average  of  17^  per 
page.     One  hundred  sixty -four  of  these  (27!  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
414  (6of  per  cent.)  adverbial;   15  (ca.  2\  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  22.  The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  II  Maccabees  (date  bet. 
Polybius  and  Strabo;  ed.  Swete,  O.  T.  in  Greek) 
One  thousand  lines  contain  781  participles,  an  average  of  nearly  23^ 
per  page.  Two  hundred  seventy-four  of  these  (a  little  over  35  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  487  (a  little  over  621  per  cent.)  adverbial;  20  (a  little  less 
than  2%  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  23.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Strabo   (d.  ca.  24  a.  d.) 
(Geog.,  Books  Vff. ;  Description  of  Italy,  etc.;  ed.  Meineke,  1868) 
In  one  thousand  lines  we  find  453  participles,  an  average  of  a  little  over 

131  per  page.     Two  hundred  twelve  of  these  (46^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 

233  (nearly  51^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  only  8  (iT\  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  24.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Josephus  (d.  ca.  100  a.  d.) 
(Anliq.,  Books  XII  and  XIII,  ed.  Niese,  1888-92) 
In  one  thousand  lines  occur  667  participles,  an  average  of  20  per  page. 
One  hundred  eleven  of  these  (i6f  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  520  (nearly  78 
per  cent.)  adverbial;  36  (5^  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Sec.  25.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  Plutarch  (d.  ca.  125  a.  d.) 
(The  Life  of  Pericles,  ed.  Holden,  1894) 

One  thousand  lines  contain  466  participles,  an  average  of  nearly  14 
per  page.  One  hundred  thirty-five  of  these  (nearly  29  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;  304  (nearly  65^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  27  (ca.  $\  per  cent.) 
complementary. 


THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 


Sec.  26.    The  Use  of  the  Participle  in  the  Documentary  Papyri 

(From  Catalog  of  Greek  Papyri,  Vol.  II,  Rom.  Period,  ist  cent.  a.  d., 

and  part  from  Oxyrhyncus  Papyri,  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  ist  cent.  a.  d.) 

In  one  thousand  lines  of  these  fragments  occur  only  228  participles, 
an  average  of  only  6T8,j%.  One  hundred  ninety-two  of  these  (84*  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  32  (ca.  14  per  cent.)  adverbial;  4  (ca.  2f  per  cent.)  comple- 
mentary. 

On  the  next  page  is  given  a  table  recapitulating  the  facts  concerning 
the  participle  in  all  the  authors  examined  in  this  chapter.  Then  some 
observations  and  comparisons  based  on  these  figures  will  be  made,  thus 
paving  the  way  for  still  further  facts  and  consequent  comparisons. 

Sec.  27.     General  Recapitulative  Table  of  Greek  Participles 


Author 

Date 

Lines 

Total 
Participles 

Average 
per  Page 
of  30  lines 

Ascriptive 
Per  cent. 

Ad- 
verbial 
Percent. 

Comple- 
mentary 
Percent. 

Homer 

Herodotus  . . . 
Sophocles. .  .  . 
Thucydides.  . 
Xenophon  .  . 

Plato 

Demosthenes. 
Septuagint .  .  . 
(Ex.,  Dt.,  Jg.) 

Polybius 

II  Maccabees. 

Strabo 

Josephus 

Plutarch 

Papyri 

c.  950-850  B.  C. 

d.  425  B.  C. 
d.  433  B.  c. 
d.  400  B.  C. 

d.  ca.  355  B.  c. 
d.  347  B.  c. 
d.  322  B.  c. 

280  f.  B.  C. 

d.  125  B.  c. 
150-IOO  B.  C. 
d.  ca.  24  A.  D. 
d.  ca.  100  A.  D. 
d.  ca.  125  A.  D. 
ist  cent.  A.  D. 

1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 

1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,000 

272 

535 
301 

43  2 
413 
339 

358 

205 

593 
781 

453 
667 
466 
228 

si 

9  + 
13 

I2| 

ioJ 

I  of 

17! 
23 1 
135 
20 
14 

6*  + 

14* 

24i\f 

25! 

22| 

28J 

45? 

37i 

78" 

27§ 

35 

46*. 

i6§ 

29 

84i 

•78§ 
7°l 
58 1 
72^ 
65f 
5<4 
519 

20 

69*. 
62^ 

5iJ 

78 

65* 

14 

7 

5,lo 
16 

51 

6- 

4t 
c.  ni 

21- 
25 

5I 

5f 

2f 

Sec.  28.    Some  Observations  on  the  Above  Table 

1.  From  this  table  we  observe  that  the  adverbial  participle  was  well 
developed  in  Homer,  over  three-fourths  of  his  participles  being  adverbial. 
The  complementary  participle  is  also  fairly  well  developed  in  Homer. 
Since  the  Hebrews  did  not  use  either  the  adverbial  or  complementary  par- 
ticiple, these  facts  show  the  Greek  language  in  Homer's  day  to  be  in  an 
advanced  stage  in  the  evolution  of  its  participle,  while  the  Hebrews  were 
in  a  very  low  state  of  participial  usage.  This  conclusion  is  based  on  the 
premise  that  the  ascriptive  use  of  the  participle  is  its  original  use,  which 
is  doubtless  true. 

2.  In  Sophocles  the  tragic  poet  the  average  is  very  small — a  little  over 
9  per  page.     But  he  has  the  largest  proportion  of  complementary  parti- 


COMPARATIVE    STUDY    OF    GREEK    PARTICIPLES  II 

ciples  found  in  any  author  examined,  from  Homer  to  Plutarch.  The 
participle  in  this  author  shows  a  high  degree  of  development  both  as  to  its 
adverbial  and  its  complementary  participle.  The  small  average  is  partially 
due  to  the  lack  of  narrative. 

3.  In  the  historians,  we  notice  a  much  larger  average  in  Herodotus — 
17^ — but  not  so  large  an  average  in  Thucydides  and  Xenophon..  Hence 
the  nature  of  the  literary  form  does  not  entirely  account  for  the  difference 
in  average,  which  is  partially  due  to  the  individual  characteristic  of  the 
author.  Herodotus  uses  more  ascriptives  than  Homer,  but  the  adverbial 
participle  is  well  illustrated  in  Herodotus  and  the  complementary  is  fairly 
common.  In  Thucydides  we  find  a  very  large  proportion  of  adverbials — 
the  third  largest  from  Homer  to  Plutarch  (Homer  and  Josephus  excelling 
him),  while  the  complementary  is  fairly  common.  Xenophon  is  close  to 
Thucydides  in  his  proportion  of  the  three  classes,  using  just  a  few  more 
ascriptives  and  just  a  few  less  adverbials. 

4.  Plato  goes  still  farther  in  using  ascriptives.  His  small  number 
of  adverbials  is  partially  due  to  the  non-narrative  form  of  his  writings. 
Demosthenes  has  a  large  number  of  complementary  participles — the  second 
largest  from  Homer  to  Plutarch ;  he  has  also  the  second  largest  proportion 
of  ascriptives  in  any  classical  author.  The  adverbial  participle  is  fairly  well 
represented  in  Plato  and  Demosthenes,  and  doubtless  its  comparatively 
small  number  is  partially  accounted  for  by  the  absence  of  pure  narrative  in 
long  passages. 

5.  In  Polybius  two  things  are  noticeable,  his  large  average  and  his 
very  small  number  of  complementary  participles.  II  Maccabees  is  remark- 
able for  its  very  large  average — the  largest  in  any  author  from  Homer 
to  Plutarch — and  its  very  small  number  of  complementaries.  Strabo 
uses  nearly  as  many  ascriptives  as  adverbials,  but  scarcely  any  comple- 
mentaries. Josephus  shows  two  remarkable  characteristics,  a  copious  use 
of  the  participle  and  an  apparently  special  effort  to  use  adverbials  in  imi- 
tation of  classical  and  kolvtj  writers.  He  surpasses,  in  number  of  adver- 
bials, Thucydides  and  Polybius,  and  equals  Homer,  while  he  uses  a  fair 
proportion  of  complementary  participles.  Plutarch  has  about  an  average 
kolvt]  usage,  except  his  average  per  page  is  nearer  to  that  of  the  classical 
writers. 

6.  Comparing  the  participial  usage  of  the  classical  period  with  that  of 
the  KOLvij  writers,  we  notice  a  much  more  copious  use  of  the  participle  in 
the  literary  Koivrj.  The  five  kolvy}  writers  examined  average  18  per  page, 
the  six  authors  of  the  classical  period,  only  ca.  12  per  page.  Each  group 
averages  ca.  30  per  cent,  ascriptive,  while  the  former  group  averages  only 


12  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS 

61  per  cent,  adverbial,  the  latter,  65  per  cent.;  the  former,  9  per  cent,  com- 
plementary, the  latter,  5  per  cent. 

7.  In  the  papyri,  the  language  of  the  masses  in  everyday  life,  we  find  a 
minimum  use  of  the  participle,  especially  of  adverbial  and  complementary 
participles  which  belong  to  the  embellishments  of  literary  style. 

The  Septuagint  has  the  smallest  average  of  any  Greek  tested.  This 
is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  vernacular  proclivities  of  the 
translators.     For  other  observations  on  the  Septuagint  see  Sec.  20. 


CHAPTER  III 

ENUMERATION  OF  THE  PARTICIPLES  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 
Sec.  29.    In  Chapters  1-12 

The  frequency  of  the  participle  in  Acts  is  striking  even  to  the  super- 
ficial reader.  To  the  careful  student  there  is  much  significance  in  the  use 
of  the  participle  in  Acts.     Let  us  gather  the  facts. 

In  the  first  twelve  chapters  occur  477  participles  to  959  lines  (WH),  an 
average  of  15^  per  page.1  One  hundred  sixty-five  of  these  (34^  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  275  (57$  per  cent.)  adverbial;  37  (ca.  7!  per  cent.)  com- 
plementary. This  enumeration  follows  closely  the  reading  of  WH,  except 
we  count  avaoras  in  9:  n  with  good  MS  evidence,  though  WH  place  it  in 
the  margin  with  avda-ra  in  the  text. 

The  complementary  participles  in  chaps.  1-12  are  construed  with  the 
following  verbs:  olkovu),  j3\eir<D,  im/AWo},  evpLCTKO),  dedopxii,  Oeupeoi,  bpdta  (etSov), 
Travo/xai,  KaAws  iroieo). 

Sec.  30.  Participles  in  the  Petrine  Addresses 
In  Peter's  address  at  the  election  of  Matthias,  1:16-22,  occur  7  parti- 
ciples to  14^  lines,  including  vss.  18  and  19  which  are  doubtful  and  which 
contain  2  participles.  Calvin,  B.  and  J.  Weiss,  and  Feine  regard  vss.  18 
and  19  as  an  "improper  interpolation  into  the  speech."  Blass  thinks  it 
wanting  in  the  B-text,  because  it  is  not  cited  by  Irenaeus  when  quoting 
vss.  16-20.  Wendt  and  other  exegetes  hesitate.  The  results  are  nearly 
the  same,  whether  we  regard  these  verses  in  or  out  of  the  address.  That 
is,  if  we  count  14^  lines  (omitting  the  quotation)  the  average  is  14^  per 
page,  5  (7 if  per  cent.)  ascriptive;  2  (284  per  cent.)  adverbial.  If  we  count 
10  lines  (omitting  18  and  19)  the  average  is  15,  4  (80  per  cent.)  ascriptive; 
one  (20  per  cent.)  adverbial.  We  notice,  comparing  the  figures  with  those 
above,  that  the  longer  form  of  the  address  agrees  more  nearly  with  the 
whole  first  portion  (chaps.  1-12). 

The  address  at  Pentecost,  2:146-36,  contains  12  participles  to  28  lines 
(omitting  16  lines  from  Joel  and  8  lines  from  the  Psalms  in  which  24  lines 
there  is  not  a  single  participle),  an  average  of  12-f .  Five  of  these  (41I  per 
cent.)  are  ascriptive;  7  (58^  per  cent),  adverbial.  These  figures  are  near 
to  those  of  chaps.  1-12,  except  there  are  no  complementary  participles, 
their  percentage  going  to  the  ascriptive. 

In  the  address  from  Solomon's  porch,  3:126-26,  occur  7  participles  to 
26  lines  (omitting  8  lines  which  are  quoted  from  Genesis  and  Deuteronomy), 
1  Page   means  30   lines  throughout  this  treatise. 
13 


14  THE    PARTICIPLE   IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

an  average  of  8^  per  page.  Two  of  these  (28^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
5  (7  if  per  cent.)  adverbial. 

In  the  address  to  the  Sanhedrin,  4:86-12,  occur  4  participles  (all  ascrip- 
tive) to  10  lines,  an  average  of  12  per  page. 

We  omit  addresses  containing  less  than  6  lines  as  too  short  for  con- 
sideration. In  the  address  before  the  Sanhedrin  after  the  release  from 
prison,  5:296-32,  occur  2  participles  to  6  lines,  an  average  of  10  per  page, 
half  ascriptive,  half  adverbial. 

In  his  address  to  Simon  Magus,  8:206-23,  occurs  only  one  participle 
(complementary)  to  6J  lines,  an  average  of  only  5  per  page.  The  address 
to  Cornelius'  household,  10:346-43,  contains  13  participles  to  22  lines,  an 
average  of  i7T8T  per  page,  8  (611^  per  cent.)  ascriptive;  5  (38^  per  cent.) 
adverbial.     This  is  the  largest  average  in  the  Petrine  addresses. 

In  the  address  to  the  apostles  and  Jerusalem  Christians,  11:5-17, 
occur  12  participles  to  25^  lines,  an  average  of  14^  per  page,  the  ascriptive, 
adverbial,  and  complementary  each  claiming  one-third.  Only  one  other 
Petrine  address  (that  to  Simon  Magus)  contains  a  complementary  parti- 
ciple (and  that  only  one,  but  all  contained  in  the  address). 

In  the  address  to  the  Jerusalem  Conference,  15:7-11,  which  belongs 
logically  to  the  Petrine  portion,  occur  only  2  participles  to  10  lines,  an 
average  of  only  6  per  page,  both  adverbial.  These  striking  facts,  and 
those  concerning  all  the  addresses  will  be  discussed  later. 

Sec.  31.    The  Participle  in  Gamaliel's  Address  (5:356-39) 

This  address  contains  12  lines,  but  has  only  one  participle,  adverbial, 
an  average  of  only  2\  per  page. 

Sec.  32.    The  Participles  in  Stephen's  Address  (7:2-53) 
This  address  contains  34  participles  to  100  lines  (excluding  19  lines  of 
matter  quoted  directly  in  which  occurs  one  participle,  iSwv,  vs.  34,   not 
counted  here),  an  average  of  n  per  page.     Eleven  of  these  (34^  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  21  (59^  percent.)  adverbial;  2  (5^  percent.)  complementary. 
Of  course,  much  of  the  100  lines  is  colored  with  Septuagint  phraseology. 
Sec.  33.    Participles  in  the  Second  Portion,  Chaps.  13-28 
These  chapters  contain  806  participles  to  1,272  lines,  an  average  of 
19  per  page.     One  hundred  ninety-four  of  these  (ca.  24  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;    590  (nearly  73^  per  cent.)  adverbial;    22   (ca.  z\  per  cent.) 
complementary.     The  complementary  participles  in  this  portion  are  con- 
strued with  the  following  verbs:     cikoixo,  yivaHTKo),  StarcAc'co,  (18ov,  eViorTa//.ai, 
evpiCTKo),  Oewpeu),  iravo/xai. 

In  the  first  portion  nine  different  verbs  took  the  complementary  parti- 


ENUMERATION   OF   PARTICIPLES   IN   THE  BOOK   OF   ACTS  1 5 

ciple,  but  eight  take  it  in  the  second  portion.  The  verbs  that  take  it  in  the 
second  portion  take  it  also  in  the  first,  except  yivwcrKw,  SiaTeAew  and 
i-n-taTafxai.  The  verbs  that  take  it  in  the  first  portion  take  it  also  in  the 
second,  except  /SAtVw,  i-n-Lfxevw,  Oedofxai,  and  KaAws  wouw. 

On  comparing  the  two  portions  of  the  Book  of  Acts  as  to  number  and 
nature  of  participles,  we  see  that  chaps.  1-12  average  15^  per  page,  while 
the  average  of  chaps.  13-28  is  19 — over  26  per  cent,  larger.  Chaps.  1-12 
contain  34^  per  cent,  ascriptive  participles,  while  chaps.  13-28,  only 
ca.  24  per  cent.  The  first  portion  contains  only  57J  per  cent,  adverbial 
participles,  while  the  second  portion  has  ca.  73J  per  cent.  The  first  twelve 
chapters  contain  7!  per  cent,  complementary  participles,  while  the  remain- 
ing chapters  have  only  2^  per  cent.  These  facts  are  striking  when  we 
first  face  them.  But  we  will  wait  till  we  come  to  Part  II  to  draw  con- 
clusions from  them. 

Sec.  34.    Participles  in  the  Pauline  Addresses 

Six  lines  are  still  regarded  as  the  minimum  for  an  address.  The  first 
address  of  Paul,  that  in  the  synagogue  of  Pisidian  Antioch,  13:166-41, 
contains  20  participles  to  40  lines  (10  lines  of  quoted  matter  with  one  parti- 
ciple not  counted),  an  average  of  15  per  page.  Twelve  of  these  (60  per 
cent.)  are  ascriptive;  8  (40  per  cent.)  adverbial. 

His  address  to  the  Lystrans,  14: 15-17  (ascribed  to  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
but  Paul  was  doubtless  the  chief  speaker),  contains  only  7  lines  (excluding 
the  quotation)  with  6  participles,  half  ascriptive  and  half  adverbial.  This 
is  an  average  of  25^  per  page,  the  largest  average  we  have  found  so  far. 

The  address  to  the  Athenians,  17:226-31,  has  15  participles  to  23  lines, 
an  average  of  19J  per  page.  Three  of  these  (20  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
12  (80  per  cent.)  adverbial. 

The  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  20:186-35,  nas  x9  participles  to 
37  lines,  an  average  of  15^  per  page.  Ten  of  these  (52^  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;   9  (47 £  per  cent.)  adverbial. 

The  address  to  the  Jewish  people  in  Aramaic,  22: 1,  3-21,  has  35  par- 
ticiples to  42  lines,  an  average  of  25  per  page.  Eighteen  of  these  (5  if 
per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  15  (42^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  2  (5!  per  cent.) 
complementary.  We  must  stop  to  say,  this  is  a  high  average  for  a  speech 
purporting  to  be  delivered  originally  in  Aramaic,  unless  it  be  a  free  com- 
position by  some  later  hand.  Paul's  reported  words  in  23:1,  3,  5,  6,  are 
not  to  be  counted  as  an  address,  since  they  occur  in  a  dialogue. 

The  address  before  Felix  in  reply  to  Tertullus,  24:106-21,  has  13 
participles  to  22  lines,  an  average  of  i7r8r  per  page.     One  of  these  (7^ 


1 6  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

per  cent.)  is  ascriptive  (the  smallest  percentage  of  ascriptives  anywhere  yet 
found);  8  (61^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  4  (3of|  per  cent.)  complementary. 

Paul's  words  to  Festus,  25:8,  10,  11,  containing  only  five  lines,  do  not 
constitute  an  address  proper.  His  address  to  Agrippa,  26:2-23,  has  24 
participles  to  49  lines,  an  average  of  14^  per  page.  Seven  of  these  (29^ 
per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  15  (62^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  2  (8 J  per  cent.) 
complementary. 

His  address  to  the  ship's  crew  and  passengers,  27:21-26,  contains  3 
participles  to  10  lines,  an  average  of  9  per  page,  one-third  ascriptive  and 
two-thirds  adverbial.  His  other  words  during  the  storm  are  not  counted 
(27:10,  33,  34). 

His  last  recorded  address  in  Acts,  28:17-20,  contains  4  participles  to 
8§  lines,  averaging  13} ^  per  page,  all  being  adverbial.  Although  Paul  is 
represented  as  speaking,  28:25-28,  these  words  are  not  counted  because 
most  of  this  section  is  a  quotation,  and  only  two  or  three  lines  are  assumed 
to  be  Paul's  original  words. 

Sec.  35.    Participles  in  the  Addresses  at  the  Jerusalem 

Conference 
For  Peter's  address  see  p.  13  above  (only  two  participles  in  10  lines 
and  both  adverbial). 

James's  address,  15:136-21,  has  only  eight  lines  (excluding  the  long 
direct  quotation  from  Amos)  with  3  participles,  2  ascriptive  and  one 
adverbial.  This  is  an  average  of  11  \  per  page.  The  letter  of  James 
averages  10  per  page,  71-f  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  28!  per  cent,  adverbial. 

Sec.  36.  The  Participles  in  the  Letter  of  Decrees 
The  letter  containing  the  so-called  decrees  of  the  "apostles  and  elders 
to  the  brothers  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch  and  Syria  and  Cilicia,"  15 :  236-29, 
contains  6  participles  to  13  lines,  an  average  of  13^  per  page,  one  (i6§ 
per  cent.)  ascriptive;  5  (83 \  per  cent.)  adverbial.  Tevo^eVois,  15:25, 
may  be  ascriptive  instead  of  adverbial,  changing  the  percentage  to  33J 
ascriptive,  66f  adverbial. 

Sec.  37.    The  Participles  in  the  Non-Christian  Addresses 

The  first  of  these,  that  of  Demetrius  to  the  workmen  in  Ephesus, 
19:256-27,  has  four  participles  to  eight  and  one-half  lines,  an  average  of 
ca.  14^  per  page,  2  ascriptive,  the  others  adverbial. 

The  address  of  the  Ephesian  town  clerk,  19:356-40,  contains  6  parti- 
ciples to  12  lines,  an  average  of  15  to  the  page,  one-third  ascriptive,  one-half 
adverbial,  and  one-sixth  complementary. 

Lysias'  letter  to  Felix,  23:26-30,  has  9  participles  to  10  lines,  an 
average  of  27  per  page  (the  largest  average  found  in  our  investigations  in 


ENUMERATION    OF   PARTICIPLES    IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS  1 7 

or  out  of  the  New  Testament).  Seven  (77-^  per  cent.)  of  these  are 
adverbial;  2  (22!  per  cent.)  are  complementary,  while  there  is  not  an 
ascriptive  participle  in  the  letter.  This  is  the  only  piece  of  Greek  examined 
(except  Gamaliel's  short  speech  with  only  one  adverbial  participle)  that 
does  not  contain  an  ascriptive  participle. 

Tertullus'  address  against  Paul,  24:26-8,  contains  6  participles  to 
10  lines,  one-third  ascriptive  and  two-thirds  adverbial.  Its  average  per 
page  is  18. 

Festus'  address  to  Agrippa,  in  two  parts,  25:146-21  and  25:24-27, 
has  16  participles  to  27  lines,  an  average  of  17^  per  page.  Four  of  these 
(25  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;    12  (75  per  cent.)  adverbial. 

Sec.  38.    The  Participles  in  the  "We"  Passages 

In  16:10-17  (tne  journey  from  Troas  to  Philippi  and  some  events 
in  the  latter)  occur  15  participles  to  21  lines,  an  average  of  20  per  page. 
Six  of  these  (40  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  9  (60  per  cent.)  adverbial. 
The  21  lines  immediately  preceding  16: 10  have  12  participles,  4if  per  cent, 
ascriptive  and  583  per  cent,  adverbial.  The  21  lines  immediately  following 
16:17  have  13  participles,  only  one  of  which  is  ascriptive,  the  rest  being 
adverbial.  That  is,  there  is  a  similarity  of  participial  usage  between  this 
"We"  passage  and  its  context,  not  so  striking  in  the  nature  of  the  participle 
but  more  striking  in  the  number  used. 

In  20:5-16  (the  journey  from  Philippi  to  Miletus  some  years  later) 
occur  23  participles  to  27  lines,  averaging  25^  per  page.  Seven  of  these 
(30^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  the  rest  being  adverbial.  The  27  lines 
immediately  preceding  20:5  have  18  participles,  an  average  of  20  to  the 
page,  2  ascriptive,  15  adverbial,  and  one  complementary.  The  27  lines 
immediately  following  20:16  have  only  10  participles,  an  average  of  11 
to  the  page,  40  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  60  per  cent,  adverbial.  But  we 
must  remember  that  these  last  27  lines  belong  to  Paul's  address  to  the 
Ephesian  elders. 

In  21 : 1-18  (the  journey  from  Miletus  to  Jerusalem)  occur  31  participles 
to  40  lines,  an  average  of  23J  per  page.  Five  of  these  (163-  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;  26  (83!  per  cent.)  adverbial.  The  40  lines  just  before  21:1  have 
22  participles,  an  average  of  i6£  per  page.  Nine  of  these  (40}?  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  12  (54T6T  per  cent.)  adverbial;  one  (4-^  per  cent.)  com- 
plementary. Observe,  35  of  these  last  40  lines  belong  to  Paul's  address 
to  the  Ephesian  elders.  The  40  lines  immediately  following  21 :  18  have  24 
participles,  an  average  of  18  per  page.  Seven  of  these  (29^  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;  16  (66f  per  cent.)  adverbial;  one  (4^  per  cent.)  complementary. 

In  27:1 — 28:16  (the  sea  voyage  from  Caesarea  to  Rome)  occur  102 


1 8  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

participles  to  127  lines,  an  average  of  24^  per  page.  Seventeen  of  these 
(i6f  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  82  (8of  per  cent.)  adverbial;  3  (244  per 
cent.)  complementary.  The  127  lines  immediately  before  27:1  have  only 
65  participles  (less  than  two-thirds  as  many  as  the  "We"  passage),  15 
(23tV  Per  cent0  ascriptive;  48  (73I  j  per  cent.)  adverbial;  2  (3^3  per  cent.) 
complementary.  Observe,  there  is  a  falling-off  of  adverbial  participles  in 
this  context.  But,  notice,  it  includes  Paul's  addresses  before  Festus  and 
Agrippa,  and  Festus'  address  to  Agrippa. 

Sec.  39.    The  Three  Accounts  of  Saul's  Conversion 

In  the  first  account  (first  in  the  book),  9:1-190,  occur  21  participles 
to  37  lines,  an  average  of  ca.  17  per  page.  Seven  of  these  (33$  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  n  (52!  per  cent.)  adverbial;  3  (14I  per  cent.)  comple- 
mentary. 

In  the  second  account,  22:4-16,  occur  20  participles  to  27  lines,  an 
average  of  22J.  Seven  of  these  (35  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  12  (60  per 
cent.)  adverbial;   one  (5  per  cent.)  complementary. 

In  the  third  account,   26:9-18,  occur  n  participles  to  23  lines,  an 
average  of  14J  per  page.     Two  of  these  (18  j\  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
7  (°3i7r  Per  cent.)  adverbial;   2  (i8y'r  per  cent.)  complementary. 
Sec.  40.    Quoted  Matter  in  the  First  Portion 

We  shall  count  as  quoted  matter  nothing  but  whole  lines  (or  lines  lack- 
ing only  one  or  two  words)  which  constitute  direct  quotations. 

In  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Acts  occur  51  lines  of  quoted 
matter,  in  which  are  found  six  participles,  an  average  of  only  3$  per  page, 
all  being  ascriptive. 

Sec.  41.    Quoted  Matter  in  the  Second  Portion 

In  chaps.  13-28  occur  27  lines  of  quoted  matter,  in  which  are  found 
only  4  participles,  an  average  of  4-$  per  page,  3  ascriptive,  the  fourth 
being  a  participle  which  translates  the  Hebrew  infinitive  absolute,  which  is 
of  the  nature  of  the  adverbial  participle. 

One  line  is  from  a  heathen  poet,  the  rest  from  the  Old  Testament 
(Septuagint  likely). 

Three  of  the  participles  in  the  citations  of  chaps.  1-12  translate  parti- 
ciples in  both  Septuagint  and  Hebrew.  The  other  three  do  not  translate 
participles  either  in  the  Septuagint  or  the  Hebrew. 

Of  the  four  participles  in  the  citations  of  chaps.  13-28  two  translate 
participles  in  the  Hebrew,  one  translates  a  substantive,  and  the  fourth,  an 
infinitive  absolute.  All  four,  as  found  in  Acts,  chaps.  T3-28,  reproduce 
participles  in  the  Septuagint.  It  is  most  probable  that  all  these  quotations 
were  made  from  the  Septuagint. 


enumeration  of  participles  in  the  book  of  acts        1 9 
Sec.  42.    Table  of  Participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts 


Name  of  Address 

Lines 

Number 
of 
Parti- 
ciples 

Average 

per  Page  of 

30  Lines 

Ascriptive 
Per  cent. 

Adverbial 
Per  cent. 

Comple- 
mentary 
Per 
cent. 

Peter's,  at  Election  of 

Matthias,  1:16-22  .. 

Peter's,  at  Pentecost, 

14$  (10) 
28 

26 

10 

6 
6* 

22 
10 

7(5) 
12 

7 
4 

2 

1 

13 

12 
2 

I4J  (15) 

I2| 

12 

10 
5- 

17  A 

I4i 

6 

71?  (80) 
4ii 

28* 

100 

5o 

oi/s 

S3h 

28*  (20) 
58$ 

71? 

50 

38i6ff 

33$ 
100 

Peter's,     from     Solo- 
mon's Porch,  3:12ft 
-26 

Peter's,  to  Sanhedrin 
before  Imprison- 
ment, 4:86-12 

Peter's,  to  Sanhedrin 
after  Release,  5 :  29ft 

Peter's,  to  Simon  Ma- 
gus, 8:206-23 

Peter's,  to  Cornelius' 
Household,      10:346 

IOO 

Peter's,     to    Apostles 

and  Jerusalem 

Christians,  11:5-17 . 
Peter's,  at  Jerusalem 

Conference  15:7-11 

33h 

Total  and  average  for 
Pet.  adds 

148*  (144) 
100 

59(57) 

1 
34 

II 

48J 

34* 

4i§ 

100 
59* 

10 

Gamaliel's    in    Sanh. 

Stephen's,  7:2-53 

5f 

Total  and  average  for 

959 

40 

7 

23 

37 

42 
22 

477 

20 
6 
15 
19 

35 
13 

15* 

15 

25? 

I9J 

i5i 

25 
i7i\ 

34iV 

60 

5° 
20 
52§ 

51? 
7tI 

57l 

40 

50 
80 

47* 
42f 

72 

Paul's  in  Pisidian  An- 
tioch,  13: 166-41. .  .  . 
Paul's,  to  Lystrans, 

Paul's,  to  Athenians, 

Paul's,  to   Eph.  Eld- 
ers, 20:186-35 

Paul's,  to  Jewish  Peo- 
ple in  Aramaic,  22: 

a 

Paul   before  Felix, 

6ii7ff         1   30}  5 

THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 
TABLE  OF  PARTICIPLES  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS— Continued 


Name  of  Address 

Lines 

Number 
of 
Parti- 
ciples 

Average 

per  Page  of 

30  Lines 

Ascriptive 
Per  cent. 

Adverbial 
Per  cent. 

Comple- 
mentary 
Per 
cent. 

Paul    before  Agrippa, 

49 
10 
8§ 

24 
3 

4 

14* 
9 
13B 

29* 

333 

62^ 
66§ 

TOO 

3°4 

Paul  to  Ship's  Crew, 

Paul,  to  Jews  in  Rome, 

Total      average      for 
Paul's  addresses.  .  .  . 

Demetrius   to  Work- 
men  in   Eph.,    19: 

25^-27 

Town  Clerk  to  Mob, 

23SI 

8i 

12 
10 

10 

27 

139 

4 
6 

9 
6 

16 

*7* 

14* 

15 
27 
18 

17* 

39i- 

5° 

33$ 
25 

54* 

5° 
5° 
77* 
66§ 

75 

i6| 

22| 

Lysias  to  Felix,  23:  26 

Tertullus     vs.     Paul, 
24:2&-8.    . 

Festus     to     Agrippa, 
25: 14^-21  and  25: 

Total  and  average  in 
non-Christian  adds. . 

First  "We"  pas.,  16: 

67^ 

21 

27 

40 

127 

41 

15 
23 
31 
102 

i7t 

20 
25* 

23i 
24lV 

22J 

40 

3°f 
16$ 
i6| 

70 

60 
69! 

83§ 
8o| 

7i 

Second     "We"     pas., 

Third     "We"     pas., 
21:1-18 

Fourth    "We"    pas., 
27:1 — 28:16 

2ff 

Average    for     "We" 

215 

37 
27 
23 

8 

171 

21 
20 
11 

3 

23+ 

ca.17 

22* 

I4i 
"1 

ca.  22 

33J 

35 

18ft 

66§ 

ca.77 

52|- 
60 
63t7i 

33* 

I- 

I4# 

5 
i8ri 

1st.  Acct.  Saul's  Con- 
version, 9: i-ioa. . . . 

Second    Acct.    Saul's 
Conversion,  22:4-16 

Third     Acct.     Saul's 
Conversion,  26:9-18 

James,  at  Jerus.  Con- 
ference, 15:136-21. . 

Total     and     average 
for  Pauline  por 

1272 

806 

19 

ca.24 

eo-73* 

ca.  i\ 

CHAPTER  IV 

A  COMPARISON  OF  PARTICIPLES  IN  OTHER  NEW 
TESTAMENT  BOOKS 

Sec.  43.    The  Participle  in  the  Third  Gospel 

Since  this  book  has  been  regarded  the  production  of  the  same  author 
that  wrote  the  Book  of  Acts,  we  put  it  first  and  submit  it  to  a  more  thorough 
examination  than  the  other  gospels. 

In  the  Third  Gospel  occur  1,045  participles  to  1,884  lines  (the  genealogy, 
not  having  any  participles,  is  not  counted  in  this  number).  This  is  an 
average  of  ca.  i6f  per  page,1  421  (40^-  per  cent.)  ascriptive;  580  (5^ 
per  cent.)  adverbial;  44  {4^  per  cent.)  complementary.2 

In  the  first  two  chapters,  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Third  Gospel  and 
which,  by  their  numerous  Hebraisms,  betray  greater  dependence  on  Ara- 
maic sources,  occur  91  participles  to  248  lines,  an  average  of  11  to  the  page. 
Fifty-five  of  these  (6of  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  29  (31^  per  cent.)  adver- 
bial; 7  (7§  per  cent.)  complementary.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  average 
is  less  in  these  chapters  than  in  the  book  at  large.  Furthermore,  it  is  to 
be  noticed  that  the  ascriptive  participles  are  more  numerous  in  this  Hebra- 
istic portion. 

The  preface  has  3  participles  to  6  lines,  an  average  of  15  per  page, 
2  ascriptive,  one  adverbial.  But,  of  course,  6  lines  are  not  sufficient 
material  from  which  to  test  the  author's  participial  usage. 

Sec.  44.    The  Participle  in  the  Other  Gospels 
Five  hundred  lines  from  each  of  the  other  gospels  are  examined,  since 
this  amount  is  regarded  as  sufficient  for  the  testing  of  the  participial  usage 
in  these  gospels. 

In  500  lines  of  Matthew  (1 :  18 — 9 : 1 1)  occur  209  participles,  an  average 
of  12 \  per  page.  Ninety-one  of  these  (43^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  108 
(513  percent.)  adverbial;  10  (\%  percent.)  complementary.  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  which  is  included  in  this  section,  contains  only  51  participles 
to  220  lines,  an  average  of  7  to  the  page,  72  per  cent,  of  which  are  ascrip- 
tive.    Hence,  our  impression  is  that  the  book  at  large  would  show  a  little 

1  Page  in  this  treatise  always  means  30  lines. 

2  It  must  be  noticed  that  15  of  these  1,045  in  Luke  are  bracketed  by  WH,  11  by 
double  brackets,  4  by  single  brackets.  But  if  all  15  of  them  should  be  finally  set  aside 
by  textual  critics,  it  would  not  materially  affect  the  general  average  stated  above. 


2  2  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

larger  average  than  12^  and  a  larger  percentage  of  adverbials  than  are  found 
in  the  section  tested. 

In  500  lines  of  Mark  (1:1 — 7:3)  occur  194  participles,  an  average  of 
n§  per  page.  Sixty-three  of  these  (32^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  117 
(60J  per  cent.)  adverbial;   14  (7^  per  cent.)  complementary. 

In  500  lines  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (first  part)  occur  174  participles,  an 
average  of  iof  per  page.  One  hundred  twenty-five  of  these  (7 if  per  cent.) 
are  ascriptive;  34  (ca.  20  per  cent.)  adverbial;  15  (8^  per  cent.)  comple- 
mentary. 

Sec.  45.     The  Participle  in  Paul's  Writings 

The  letter  to  the  Galatians  contains  260  lines  with  82  participles,  an 
average  of  9^  per  page.  Fifty-six  of  these  (68^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
25  (30^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  one  (i£  per  cent.)  complementary. 

In  500  lines  of  Romans  (5 : 1 — 15 : 5)  occur  155  participles,  an  average  of 
9^  per  page.  One  hundred  twenty-two  of  these  (78!  per  cent.)  are  ascrip- 
tive; 32  (20$  per  cent.)  adverbial;'  one  (scarcely  two-thirds  of  1  per  cent.) 
complementary.  The  section  examined  includes  both  argumentative  and 
narrative  portions. 

In  500  lines  of  I  Cor.  (first  part)  occur  132  participles,  an  average  of 
ca.  8  per  page.  Ninety -seven  of  these  (73^  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  34 
(25^  per  cent.)  adverbial;  one  (ca.  three-fourths  of  1  per  cent.)  comple- 
mentary. 

Sec.  46.    The  Participle  in  Other  Epistles 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  660  lines  in  which  occur  307  parti- 
ciples, an  average  of  ca.  14  per  page.  One  hundred  seventy-five  of  these 
(57  percent.)  are  ascriptive;  126  (41  percent.)  adverbial;  6  (ca.  2  percent.) 
complementary. 

The  Epistle  of  James  has  214  lines  with  71  participles,  an  average  of 
nearly  10  per  page.  Forty-nine  of  these  (69  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;  22 
(31  per  cent.)  adverbial.  There  is  not  a  complementary  participle  in  this 
letter. 

The  Epistle  of  First  Peter  contains  220  lines  with  115  participles, 
an  average  of  15$  per  page.  Sixty-three  of  these  (nearly  55  per  cent.)  are 
ascriptive;  52  (45  per  cent.)  adverbial.  There  is  not  a  complementary 
participle  in  this  letter.  Four  or  five  of  its  participles  may  easily  be  counted 
either  as  ascriptive  or  adverbial. 

In  First  John  are  contained  239  lines  in  which  occur  52  participles,  an 


COMPARISON    OF    PARTICIPLES    IN    OTHER   NEW   TESTAMENT    BOOKS    23 


average  of  6h  per  page.     Forty-nine  of  these  (94  £  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive; 
3  (5f  Per  cent.)  complementary.1 


47- 


The  Participle  in  the  Apocalypse 
-10:2,  occur  163  participles,  an  average  of  9^. 


Sec. 
In  500  lines,  1 : 1 — 10:2,  occur  163  participles,  an  average  of  9^.     One 
hundred  thirty-two  of  these  (81  per  cent.)  are  ascriptive;   16  (9!  per  cent.) 
adverbial;   15  (9 {  per  cent.)  complementary.     How  different  the  participial 
usage  in  Revelation  from  that  in  the  Gospel  or  Epistle  of  John ! 

Sec.  48.     Recapitulative  Table  for  the  New  Testament 


Complemen- 
tary 
Per  cent. 


Luke.... 
Mark.  .. 
Matthew 
John. .  .  . 

Gal 

I  Cor.  .  . 
Rom. . .  . 
Hebrews 
James. . . 
I  Pet.... 
I  John.. 

Apoc 

Acts 


Lines 

Participles 

Average   per 

Page  of  30 

Lines 

Ascriptive 
Per  cent. 

Adverbial 
Per  cent. 

1,884 

1,045 

l6§ 

4°M> 

55* 

500 

194 

«i 

3** 

60$ 

500 

209 

12* 

43  h 

5i| 

t;oo 

174 

I05 

7  if 

20 

260 

82 

9* 

68  A 

^oi 

SOO 

I?2 

8 

73* 

25l 

500 

155 

9i3o 

78f 

205 

660 

3°7 

14 

57 

4i 

214 

71 

10  — 

69 

31 

220 

115 

r5§ 

55 

45 

239 

52 

6^ 

94i 

500 

16? 

0* 

81 

9! 

2,231 

1,283 

I7l 

28} 

68 

Sec.  49.  Some  Observations  on  This  Table 
Excepting  the  Lukan  writings,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  First 
Peter,  the  average  is  small  throughout  the  New  Testament.  The  Book  of 
Acts  has  the  highest  average,  Luke  comes  next  (only  two-thirds  of  1  per 
cent,  less),  then  comes  First  Peter  (only  1  per  cent,  less  than  Luke).  Paul's 
average  is  small,  ranging  from  8  to  9^  in  different  letters.  The  Johannine 
writings  (gospel  and  epistle)  have  a  still  lower  average,  while  the  Apocalypse 
has  a  greater  average  than  the  Pauline  writings.  Matthew  comes  fourth 
in  average,  then  comes  Mark.  The  New  Testament  average  is  not  very 
much  lower  than  that  of  the  classical  writers,  but  is  very  far  below  the  aver- 
age of  Koivri  writers. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  participle,  the  Book  of  Acts  has  the  largest  per- 
centage of  adverbial  participles.  Mark  comes  next,  then  Luke,  Matthew, 
I  Pet.,  Hebrews,  then  follow  in  descending  grade  James,  Paul's  letters,  the 
Gospel  of  John,  till  the  Apocalypse  has  only  9!  per  cent,  and  First  John 


1  This  count  for  the  complementary  include 
reading  (WH). 


i\r)\vd6Ta,  4:2,  which  is  a   doubtful 


24  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

none  at  all.  There  is  a  remarkable  difference  between  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  of  John,  the  gospel  having  20  per  cent,  adverbial,  the  epistle  none  at 
all.  The  presence  of  so  much  narrative  in  the  gospel  and  its  utter  absence 
in  the  epistle  largely  explain  this  difference. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  great  majority  of  New  Testament  participles 
are  ascriptive  (especially  if  we  except  the  Lukan  writings,  Mark,  and 
Matthew).  The  koivj  writings,  as  a  whole,  show  a  much  larger  percentage 
of  adverbials  than  of  ascriptives.  The  classical  literature  exhibits  the 
same  fondness  for  the  adverbial  participle.  But  the  Septuagint  and  the 
papyri  exhibit  a  still  greater  fondness  for  the  ascriptive  participle,  both 
using  a  very  small  percentage  ofttdverbials. 


CHAPTER  V 

PARTICLES  WITH  PARTICIPLES  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 
Sec.  50.     Preliminary  Statement 
There  are  not  many  particles  used  with  the  participles  of  the  Book  of 
Acts.     Although  the  author  uses  the  participle  copiously,   he  uses   the 
particles  with  participles  sparingly. 

*Av  with  a  participle  to  represent  the  indicative  or  optative  with  av  in 
conditional  sentences,  a  fairly  common  construction  in  classical  Greek, 
does  not  occur  at  all  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  The  following  particles  used 
with  the  participle  in  classical  Greek  are  not  so  used  in  the  Book  of  Acts: 

are,  8lo.  tovto,  eiTa,  IvravOa,  i$at<f>vri<;,  eirecm,  tv9v<;,  /j.€ra$v,    olov,    ota,    o/x<d?, 

ovrws.  KcuVep,  common  in  classical  and  koivt/j  Greek,  though  it  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament  five  times  (3  in  Hebrews,  one  in  Paul,  one  in  II  Peter), 
is  conspicuously  absent  from  the  Book  of  Acts. 

The  particles  that  may  be  considered  as  used  with  participles  are 
a/xa,  ySrj,  kuitoi,  outws,  Tore,  w?,  uHnrep. 

Sec.  51.  "kfjua.  with  Participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
This  particle  occurs  only  twice  in  the  book  and  that  in  the  late  chap- 
ters, 24:26;  27:40.  In  the  former  the  author  is  describing  the  rejection 
of  Paul's  message  by  Felix  and  the  latter's  promise  to  call  for  him  at  a 
convenient  season,  and  adds,  a/xa  /cat  i\iri£<i>v  on  x°VlxaTa  So^o-crai,  etc., 
hoping  also  that  money  should  be  given.  The  participial  clause  expresses 
an  additional  motive  for  the  extension  of  Paul's  imprisonment,  and  so  the 
participle  is  causal.  Hence,  the  particle  afxa,  temporal  in  its  nature,  does 
not  necessarily  make  the  participle  temporal.  Perhaps  we  can,  in  this 
instance,  see  its  temporal  force  in  its  connection  with  e,a<£o/3os  yevo/xevos,  that 
is,  along  with  his  fear  Felix  was  also  hoping  to  receive  money. 

In  27:40  the  author  is  telling  how  the  crew  cast  off  the  anchors  and  left 
them  in  the  sea,  ajua  (WvTe?  r.  t,i.vKT-qp!.a<;  r.  7r^8aAtwv,  at  the  same  time 
having  loosed  the  bands  of  the  rudders.  Here  the  particle  is  evidently 
temporal  and  strengthens  the  participle  which  is  also  temporal. 

Sec.  52.    *HS»7  with  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 

This  particle  occurs  only  once  with  the  participle,  27:9,   6vto<z   r^h-q, 

etc.     It  is  used  for  emphasis,  the  danger  of  the  voyage  was  "already" 

present.     It  does  not  necessarily  make  the  participle  temporal,  for  the 

participle  in  this  sentence  seems  to  express  cause  rather  than  time.     The 

25 


26  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

presence  of  the  danger  is  evidently  the  occasion  of  Paul's  address  which 
immediately  follows. 

Sec.  53.     KatVot  with  the  Participle  est  the  Book  of  Acts 

Though  this  particle  is  used  with  the  concessive  participle  in  classical 

Greek,  and  is  clearly  so  used  in  Heb.  4:3,  it  is  not  so  used  in  the  Book  of 

Acts.     It  occurs  only  once  in  the  book,  14:17,  and  here  it  is  more  closely 

connected  with  the  finite  verb  (a<prJKei>)  than  with  the  participle  (dyadovpywv) . 

Sec.  54.  Ovtws  with  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
There  are  only  two  passages  that  can  possibly  be  considered  as  bearing 
on  the  participle,  20:11;  20:35.  In  the  former,  o/AiA^o-as  a\pi  avyrj% 
ovtws  i£r)\0ev,  having  talked  with  them  till  dawn  thus  he  went  forth,  the 
particle  is  in  apposition  with  the  idea  expressed  in  the  participle,  but  really 
modifies  the  action  of  the  principal  verb.  That  is,  the  ovtws  points  back 
to  the  participle,  gathers  up  its  force,  and  brings  it  forward  to  describe 
the  circumstances  under  which  Paul  went  forth  from  Troas. 

In  20:35,  on  ovtws  K07ruovTas  Set,  etc.,  that  so  laboring  ye  should 
help  the  weak,  the  particle  directly  modifies  the  participle,  and  both  together 
modify  the  principal  verb. 

Sec.  55.     Totc  with  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
This  particle  occurs  eleven  times  with  the  participle  in  the  Book  of 
Acts.1     But  the  particle  is  much  more  closely  connected  with  the  finite 
verb  than  with  the  participle.     This  seems  to  be  true  in  every  instance. 

Sec.  56.    'Os  with  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 

This  particle  is  not  used  in  the  Book  of  Acts  with  the  future  participle 
to  express  purpose,  as  in  classical  and  kolvtj  Greek  (and  in  Heb.  13:17). 
The  future  participle  without  ws  is  used  three  times  (8:27;  24:11,  17) 
to  express  purpose. 

In  1 :  10,  ws  is  to  be  construed  with  the  finite  verb,  not  with  the  participle. 
In  3:12,  &s  ...  .  TTfLiroaqKoaiv,  the  particle  is  construed  with  the  parti- 
ciple and  expresses  the  supposed  ground  of  the  wonder.  That  is,  the  people 
were  wondering  on  the  supposed  ground  that  Peter  and  John  with  their 
own  power  had  healed  the  lame  beggar. 

In  19:34  the  WH  text  puts  wo-ei  in  single  half-brackets,  though  many 
editors  prefer  ws.  But  if  ws  be  the  correct  reading,  the  construction  is  an 
anacoluthon,  and  the  ws  does  not  seem  to  go  with  the  participle  Kpat,6vTu>v 
(or  /c/Da£ovT£s  in  Tisch.)  but  with  the  phrase  «rt  woas  Suo,  for  about  two 
hours. 

M:8;  5:26;   7:4;   13:3,12;   21:26,33;   25:12;   26:1;   27:21;   28:1. 


PARTICLES    WITH   PARTICIPLES    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS  27 

In  23:15,  <I>s  /LicAAovTas  SiayuwKciv,  Buttmann  makes  the  limitation 
that  of  comparison.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  particle  here  has  a  meaning 
closely  akin  to  its  usual  significance,  namely,  supposed,  or  pretended, 
ground  of  action.  That  is,  the  conspiring  band  of  Jews  say  to  the  council, 
"Have  Paul  brought  on  the  apparent  ground  that  you  are  going  to  investi- 
gate his  case  more  thoroughly,  but  we  will  slay  him  while  he  is  being 
brought."     This  is  evidently  the  thought. 

In  23:20  and  27:30,  ws  is  used  to  express  a  supposed  basis  of  action. 
In  28:19,  °"X  <5>s  •  •  •  •  «Xwvj  not  because  I  had,  etc.,  the  particle  o>s  seems 
to  strengthen  the  causal  participle  Ix^v.  Yet  more  likely  the  meaning 
is,  not,  as  it  appears  to  others,  because  I  have  anything  to  bring  against 
my  nation,  etc. 

SEC.    57.     "Qairtp   WITH   THE   PARTICIPLE   IN   THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

This  particle  is  used  only  three  times  in  the  book  and  is  apparently  not 
construed  with  either  a  finite  verb  or  a  participle.  In  2:2  the  particle  is 
more  closely  connected  with  ttvotjs  than  with  the  participle  ^epofxiv^ 
which  simply  modifies  ttvo^s  as  an  adjective.  In  3:17  and  11:15,  <^°'7r£p 
introduces  a  clause  without  any  form  of  the  verb  expressed. 

Sec.  58.  M^  and  Oi  with  the  Participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
The  usual  negative  with  participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts  is  /at),  there 
being  thirteen  instances  with  this  particle  and  only  one  clear  case  of  oi. 
The  usage  of  the  negative  with  the  participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  though 
not  in  accord  with  the  classical  usage,  is  the  regular  kolvtq  usage.  But 
Gildersleeve  has  shown  that  even  in  earlier  Greek  p.rj  sometimes  encroached 
on  oi.  So  he  calls  the  larger  use  of  p.rj  in  late  Greek  (second  century  B.C. 
on)  "an  extension  and  not  an  innovation."  But  this  is  scarcely  true  of 
/A.77  with  the  participle  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Here  the  usage,  if  not  an 
actual  "innovation,"  is  closely  bordering  on  an  "innovation,"  as  compared 
with  the  classical  usage,  since  p.rj  is  used  thirteen  times  and  oi  but  once 
(7:5,  with  a  concessive  participle). 

It  is  true,  we  find  oi  in  a  participial  clause  in  17:27,  but  it  is  evident 
that  the  negative  modifies  the  adverb  p.a.Kp6v  and  not  the  participle  vitapxovTa. 
It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  the  participial  clause  in  17:27  is  concessive, 
just  as  it  is  in  7  : 5.  In  27 :  20,  ovk  goes  with  oAiyov,  not  with  the  participle. 
In  28: 2,  oi  modifies  the  participle  which  is  purely  an  adjective.  In  28: 19, 
oi%  modifies  the  whole  clause  introduced  by  o>s,  and  not  the   participle 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  PERIPHRASTIC  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 
Sec.  59.  Preliminary  Statement 
The  periphrastic  construction  is  often  found  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  is 
fairly  common  also  in  the  Third  Gospel.  Plummer,  in  his  commentary  on 
Luke,  p.  li,  asserts  that  this  construction  is  a  Hebraism.  Yet,  he  admits 
that  "many  (cases)  would  be  admissible  in  classical  Greek."  It  is  quite 
evident  from  the  following  facts  that  the  periphrastic  construction  is  no 
Hebraism.  Even  as  far  back  as  Homer  we  find  this  construction,  though 
its  occurrences  there  are  rare — only  4  to  1,000  lines.  But  in  Demos- 
thenes we  find  14  cases  to  1,000  lines,  in  Polybius,  8  to  1,000  lines,  and 
in  Strabo,  15.  Perhaps  we  are  safe  in  inferring  from  these  facts  that  the 
periphrastic  construction  became  more  common  in  kolvtj  writers  than  in 
the  earlier  authors.  If  so,  this  would  help  to  account  for  the  excessive 
use  of  the  periphrastic  participle  in  the  Lukan  writings.  Yet,  the  fact  that 
Josephus  and  Plutarch  scarcely  ever  used  a  periphrastic  participle  is  diffi- 
cult to  explain,  unless  we  regard  their  Greek  abnormal,  as  it  seems  to  be 
(especially  that  of  Josephus  who  uses  fewer  periphrastic  and  more  adverbial 
participles  than  any  other  Koivrj  writer). 

Sec.  60.  Various  Forms  of  the  Periphrastic  Participle  in  the 
Book  of  Acts 

There  are  seven  different  uses — that  of  the  present  participle  with  the 
present  tense  of  ctvai  (5  occurrences  in  the  book);  that  of  the  present 
participle  with  the  imperfect  of  eTvat  (33  cases) ;  that  of  the  perfect  parti- 
ciple with  the  present  of  dvai  (5  cases) ;  that  of  the  perfect  participle  with 
the  imperfect  of  etvai  (16  cases);  that  of  the  present  participle  with  virdpx^ 
(2  cases) ;  that  of  the  perfect  participle  with  vndpx^  (2  cases) ;  that  of  the 
present  participle  with  the  future  of  the  verb  to  be,  ea-rj  (one  case). 

Thus  we  see  that  there  are  in  all  64  instances  of  the  periphrastic  participle 
in  the  Book  of  Acts,  an  average  of  a  little  over  29  to  the  1,000  lines.  That 
is,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  uses  about  twice  as  many  periphrastic 
participles  as  Demosthenes  or  Strabo,  in  whose  writings  the  construction 
occurs  most  frequently  outside  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Sec.  61.     The  Distribution  of  Periphrastic  Participles  in  the 
Book  of  Acts 
Of  the  64  occurrences  in  the  book  34  are  found  in  chaps.  1-12  and  30 
in  chaps.  13-28.     That  is,  though  there  is  about  one-third  more  material 

28 


PERIPHRASTIC   PARTICIPLE   IN   THE   BOOK   OF  ACTS  29 

in  chaps.  13-28,  yet  there  are  over  20  per  cent,  more  periphrastic  participles 
in  chaps.  1-12.  That  is,  in  chaps.  1-12  there  is  one  periphrastic  participle 
to  every  26$  lines,  while  in  chaps.  13-28  there  is  one  to  every  43!  lines — 
about  one-third  greater  average  in  chaps.  1-12. 

Perhaps  facts  like  these  are  the  basis  of  statements  like  that  of  Plummer 
quoted  above.  But  we  are  not  driven  to  conclude  that,  because  there  are 
so  many  periphrastic  participles  to  the  page  in  the  Aramaic  portion  of  a 
book  (whether  Luke  or  Acts),  therefore  the  periphrastic  construction  is  a 
Hebraism.  The  very  fact  that  it  does  occur  in  Homer,  Demosthenes, 
Polybius,  and  Strabo  proves  it  to  be  a  regular  Greek  construction  and  not 
a  Hebraism.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  the  periphrastic  construc- 
tion is  more  frequently  used  in  the  Aramaic  portion  of  the  Book  of  Acts 
does  lead  us  to  conclude  that  the  periphrastic  participle  is  more  common  in 
writings  influenced  by  Aramaic  sources  than  in  writings  purely  Greek  in 
their  origin. 

Sec.  62.    The  Facts  as  to  the  Location  and  Use  op  Periphrastic 
Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  1-12 

If  there  is  only  one  participle  in  a  verse,  it  is  designated  by  chapter  and 
verse;  if  there  are  more  than  one  in  a  verse,  they  are  designated  by  the 
letters  a,  6,  c,  d,  e,  affixed  to  the  verse  number,  a  standing  for  the  first 
participle  in  the  verse,  6,  for  the  second,  etc. 

The  instances  of  the  present  participle  with  the  present  of  €i)u.i  are: 
1:126;  4:366;  5:25c;  10: 196. '  The  instances  of  the  present  participle 
with  the  imperfect  of  €t/At  are:  1:10a,  13,  14;  2:3a,  5,  42;  8:1,  136,  28a, 
286;  9:9,  28a,  286;  10:24a,  30;  11:5a;  12:5,  6a,  12J,  20a.  Perfect 
participle  with  the  present  of  etfu:  2:136;  5:256.  Perfect  participle 
with  imperfect  of  et/u:  1:17;  4:316;  8:16a,  9:336;  12:12c.  Present 
participle  with  virdpx^:   8:9a,  96.     Perfect  participle  with  virapx<»:   8:166. 

Sec.  63.    The  Facts  as  to  the  Location  and  Use  of  Periphrastic 
Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  13-28 

Present  participle  with  the  present  of  eT/u:  19:366.  Present  participle 
with  the  imperfect  of  eljiu:  14:7;  16:96,  gc,  12;  18:7c;  19:14;  2o:gb;1 
21:3c,  9;  22:19a,  196,  206,  20c.  Perfect  participle  with  the  present  of 
et/Ai:  21:336;  25:146;  26:266.  Perfect  participle  with  the  imperfect 
of  ci/xi:  13:486;  14:26;  16:9a;  18:25a;  19:32;  20:8,  13c;  21:29; 
22:20a,  29c;  25:10.  Perfect  participle  with  inrdpx<»  (infinitive):  19:36c. 
Present  participle  with  the  future  of  e?/u.i:    13:11a. 

1  Copula  omitted. 


30  the  participle  in  the  book  of  acts 

Sec.  64.  Some  Observations  on  These  Facts 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  nine  of  the  perfect  participles  with  the  verb  to 
be  arc  the  pluperfect  passive.  Three  of  the  perfect  participles  with  the 
present  of  the  verb  to  be  are  used  as  perfect  passive.  Two  of  the  perfects 
with  the  present  of  the  verb  to  be  are  active  and  are  used  to  increase  the 
vividness  of  the  action. 

The  most  common  form  of  the  periphrastic  participle  in  the  Book  of 
Acts  is  thai  of  the  present  parti<  [pie  with  the  imperfect  of  the  verb  to  be — 
a  little  over  half  of  all  the  cases  are  in  this  form.  This  form  is  used  in 
narrative  to  describe  vividly  a  progressive  action  in  the  past.  The  present 
participle  with  the  present  of  the  verb  to  be  (five  cases  in  the  book)  de- 
scribes vividly  a  progressive  action  in  the  present.  The  one  case  of  the 
present  participle  with  the  future  of  the  verb  to  be  seems  to  express  vividly 
a  progressive  action  in  the  future. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  not  only  etrai,  but  also  vTrdpxtt-v,  and  Trpovn-dp- 
\uv  take  the  periphrastic  construction  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  In  28:8 
occurs  awexofxtvov  with  KaraKdaOai  (was  lying  sick)  almost  in  a  periphras- 
tic sense.  But  it  is  not  counted,  because  this  verb  does  not  regularly  take 
a  periphrastic  construction. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  GENITIVE  ABSOLUTE  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 

Sec.  65.     Introductory  Statement 

The  genitive  absolute  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  on  Greek  soil  (so 

Spieker  and  Brugmann,   American  Journal  of  Philology,   VI,   310  ff.). 

It  probably  arose  with  the  present  participle  of  time,  since  most  of  the 

cases  in  Homer  are  such,  with  only  a  few  aorist  absolute  genitives.     Only 

a  few  absolute  genitives  occur  in  Homer,  a  few  more  in  Hesiod,  but  there  is 

a  gradual  increase  in  the  use  of  this  construction  until  it  reached  its  climax 

in  the  Attic  orators  (so  Spieker). 

Sec.  66.    The  Facts  as  to  the  Location  and  Function  of  the 
Genitive  Absolute  in  Acts,  Chaps.  1-12 
For  the  method  of  locating  the  participles  see  first  paragraph,  Sec.  62. 
The  following  cases  of  the  genitive  absolute  belong  to  the  general 
adverbial:    i:gb;    3:11a;    5:2a;    10:10;    total,  4.     Cases  implying  time: 
1:10b;  6:1;   7:30,316;   10:9a,  96,  iga,  44a;   12:13,18;  total,  10.     Cases 
implying  cause:    1:8;    2:6a;   4:1,31a;   9:38a;    total,  5.     Cases  implying 
concession:    3:13;    4:37a;    7:5,  21;    9:8a;   total,  5.     One  case  implying 
condition:    5:15. 

Sec.  67.    The  Facts  as  to  the  Location  and  Function  of  the 
Genitive  Absolute  in  Acts,  Chaps.  13-28 
Cases  of  the  general  adverbial :   13:42,43a;   14:20a;   19:6,33a;   20:7a; 
21:56,40a;  25:70V  26:14a;  27:2c;  28:9a;  total,  12. 

Cases  implying  time:  13:2a,  26,  24;  16:16a,  35a;  17:16a;  18:12,  14, 
27a;  20:9c;  21:10,  17,  31,  40c;  22:176;  23:12a,  30a;  24:2,  10a,  20, 
27a;  25:7a,  13a,  15a,  17a,  23a,  236,  26;  26:106,  24;  27:9a,  21a,  27; 
28:3a,  36,  6a,  66,  136,  176,  256;  total,  40. 

Cases  implying  cause:  15:2,7a;  17:166;  18:6a,  66;  19:360,400;  20: 
36;  21:140,34;  22:230,236,23c;  23:7,10a;  24:20",  1  ia,  25a;  25:21,23c, 
25;  27:7c,  96,  12a,  13a,  15a,  156,  18,  20a,  206,  30a,  306,  30c;  28:190; 
total,  34. 

Cases  implying  concession:  18:20;  19:30.  One  case  implying  con- 
dition:   18:21c. 

Sec.  68.     Some  Observations  on  These  Facts 
As  to  the  distribution  of  the  cases  of  the  genitive  absolute  in  the  Book 
of  Acts,  we  notice  that  only  25  cases  occur  in  chaps.  1-12,  while  89  cases 

31 


32  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

occur  in  chaps.  13-28.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  22  cases  in  chaps.  13-28 
are  found  in  the  last  "We"  passage,  27:1 — 28:16.  The  larger  element 
of  narrative  and  the  greater  percentage  of  adverbial  participles  in  chaps. 
13-28  help  to  explain  the  large  number  of  absolute  genitives.  The  num- 
ber in  the  book  is  114,  or  nearly  one-eleventh  of  all  the  participles  in  the 
book. 

As  to  the  tenses  in  the  genitive  absolute,  there  are  63  cases  of  the  present, 
15  in  chaps.  1-12,  48  in  chaps.  13-28;  48  cases  of  the  aorist,  8  in  chaps. 
1-12,  40  in  chaps.  13-28,  while  only  3  cases  of  the  perfect  occur  in  the 
book,  2  in  the  first  portion,  one  in  the  second. 

As  to  the  relative  frequency  in  the  two  portions  of  the  book,  we  observe 
that  there  occurs  one  participle  to  ca.  38^  lines  in  the  first  portion,  while  in 
the  second  portion  there  occurs  one  to  every  14^  lines.  That  is,  there  are 
about  two  and  three-fourths  times  as  many  absolute  genitives  to  the  page 
in  the  second  portion  as  there  are  in  the  first  portion. 

As  to  the  significance  of  these  absolute  genitives  in  the  Book  of  Acts, 
most  of  them  (50)  imply  time.  Then  comes  the  causal  relation  with 
39  cases;  general,  16;  the  concessive,  7;  condition,  2.  In  chaps.  1-12 
are  found  10  temporal  absolute  genitives,  5  each,  causal  and  concessive, 
conditional,  one.  The  implied  relations  of  time  and  cause  are  much  more 
prominent  in  chaps.  13-28  than  in  chaps.  1-12  (there  being  40  cases  of 
time  and  34  cases  of  cause). 

Sec.  69.     Some  Irregularities  in  the   Genitive  Absolute  in  the 
Book  of  Acts 

There  are  only  a  few  loose  constructions  of  the  genitive  absolute  in  the 
Books  of  Acts.  In  7:21  occurs  the  genitive  absolute  where  the  accusative 
would  have  been  the  regular  participial  construction:  "The  daughter  of 
Pharaoh  took  him  up  after  he  had  been  cast  out."  But  the  genitive  abso- 
lute, bringing  in  at  the  head  of  the  sentence  the  casting-out  of  the  little 
child,  makes  more  emphatic  than  the  accusative  could  do  the  divine  provi- 
dence over  the  child  in  its  concealment. 

In  21:17  we  have  the  genitive  absolute  where  the  accusative  would  be 
regular,  but  the  genitive  absolute  introducing  the  sentence  and  followed 
by  the  accusative  makes  prominent  the  reception  given  to  Paul  and  his 
party  when  they  arrived  in  Jerusalem.  In  21:10,  linixevovTwv  has  no 
substantive. 

In  21:34  we  find  a  genitive  absolute  which  refers  to  the  chiliarch  of 
vs.  33  who  is  the  subject  of  the  principal  verb  in  vs.  34.  Perhaps,  this 
loose  genitive  absolute  adds  a  touch  of  vividness  to  the  "inability"  (jvq 


GENITIVE    ABSOLUTE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS  33 

Svvafxevov  avrov)  of  the  chiliarch  to  find  out  the  exact  condition  of  affairs 
concerning  Paul. 

In  22: 17  we  find  the  genitive  absolute,  dative,  and  accusative  referring 
to  the  same  person.  But  there  are  three  things  to  be  made  emphatic, 
Paul's  return  to  Jerusalem,  his  praying,  and  his  coming  into  an  ecstasy, 
and  no  device  of  the  author  could  have  made  more  prominent  each  one  of 
these  things  than  the  use  of  different  cases.  Perhaps,  the  necessity  to 
change  the  tense  of  the  participle  (from  aorist  to  present)  made  easier 
the  change  of  cases  (from  dative  to  genitive  absolute). 

In  25:21  we  have  a  genitive  absolute  and  an  accusative  referring  to  the 
same  person.  There  are  a  few  other  loose  constructions  of  the  genitive 
absolute  in  the  book.  But  these  few  exceptions  only  emphasize  the  fact 
that  the  author  of  this  book  closely  followed  the  rule  to  make  the  genitive 
absolute  refer  to  a  substantive  not  connected  with  the  rest  of  the  sentence. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  TENSE  IN  THE  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE 
BOOK  OF  ACTS 

Sec.  70.     General  Statement 

Of  the  1,283  participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts  594  are  in  the  present  (231 
in  chaps.  1-12,  363  in  chaps.  13-28);  588  are  in  the  aorist  (208  in  chaps. 
1-12,  380  in  chaps.  13-28);  5  are  in  the  future  (one  in  chaps.  1-12,  4  in 
chaps.  13-28) ;  96  are  in  the  perfect  (38  in  chaps.  1-12,  58  in  chaps.  13-28). x 

Tense  in  the  indicative  expresses  the  state  and  time  of  the  action.  In 
the  subjunctive,  optative,  and  infinitive,  tense  seems  to  refer  almost  exclu- 
sively to  the  state  of  the  action,  the  time-relation  being  indicated  only  by 
the  context  or  otherwise.  Is  the  participle  to  be  classed  with  the  indicative, 
or  with  the  subjunctive,  optative,  and  infinitive,  with  respect  to  the  time- 
function  of  its  tenses  ?  The  facts  of  participial  usage  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
show  that  the  chief  function  of  tense  in  the  participle  is  to  denote  the  state 
of  the  action  and  that  time  is  only  implied  from  the  context  or  some  par- 
ticle. 

Sec.  71.    Facts  in  the  Book  of  Acts  Bearing  on  the 
Problem  of  Tense-Function  in  the  Participle 

the  present  participle 

The  present  participle  generally  refers  to  action  simultaneous  to  that 
of  the  principal  verb.  Of  the  594  cases  in  the  Book  of  Acts  518  are  used 
with  reference  to  simultaneous  action.  All  present  participles  not  men- 
tioned in  the  five  subclasses  below  refer  to  simultaneous  action. 

Twenty-four  present  participles  are  used  with  reference  to  identical 
action,  namely:  1:6;  3:25;  4:16a;  5:23,  27;  8:26a;  11:4;  14:11; 
15:13;  16:28;  19:13c;  20:23;  21:21,  40;  22:26;  23:9,  12;  24:2,  9; 
25:14;  26:31;   27:10,33a;  28:26. 

Thirty-nine  present  participles  are  used  to  express  a  general  action 
(not  limited  as  to  time),  namely:  1:12a,  20,  23;  3:20,  116;  6:9a;  7:58; 
8:106,32;  9:11;  10:1,2,2,2,186,22,22,35,35;  11:13;  12:10,126,25; 
13:16,16,26,436;  15:18,37;  16:14a;  17:24,25,25;  18:76;  19:24,26c; 
27:86,  14,  16. 

Three  present  participles  are  used  for  a  progressive  action  in  the  past, 
namely:    4:34a,  346;    10:7a. 

1  The  above  figures  count  Keipovros  (present)  not  Keipavros  (aorist)  in  8:32; 
and  in  23:7,  XaXovvros  (present)  not  elirbvTos  (aorist). 

34 


FUNCTION    OF    TENSE    IN   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS     35 

Six  present  participles  refer  to  future  action,  namely:  3:26  (purpose); 
5:15  (equivalent  to  a  more  vivid  future  condition) ;  15:27  (purpose) ;  15 :  29 
(more  vivid  future  condition);  r  18:21  (more  vivid  future  condition); 
19:46;    21:3. 

Four  present  participles  refer  to  past  action  still  in  progress  in  the 
present,  namely:   3:2a;   9:33;    24:10;    26:5. 

THE   AORIST   PARTICIPLE 

The  aorist  participle  usually  refers  to  action  antecedent  to  that  of  the 
principal  verb.  Of  the  588  cases  in  the  Book  of  Acts  540  refer  to  ante- 
cedent action.  All  the  aorist  participles  not  mentioned  in  the  two  sub- 
classes below  refer  to  antecedent  action.2 

Twenty-five  aorist  participles  refer  to  identical  action.  Ei7rujv  refers  to 
identical  action  in  7:26,  27,  35,  40;  10:3;  11:13;  19:21;  21:14;  22:24; 
24:22.  The  remaining  eight  cases  of  elirwv  refer  to  antecedent  action.2 
'ATTOKpt^et?  refers  to  identical  action  in  4:19;  5:29;  8:24,  34,  37;  19:15; 
25:9.  The  following  cases  of  aorist  participles  from  other  verbs  refer  to 
identical  action:    1:24;    5:30;    8:24;    9:256;    10:33,  39!    13:226;    21:16. 

Twenty-three  aorist  participles  are  doubtful  as  to  their  time-relation: 
7:i9,  26,33;  9-i2a,  12b;  10:30,36;  11:12,13,13,30;  12:46;  15:9,23; 
16:6,  236;  22:166,  22:24;  23:24,  25,  35;  24:23;  26:13.3  ln  25:13  the 
aorist  participle  seems  to  express  purpose,  i.  e.,  to  refer  to  the  future.  But 
the  text  is  probably  corrupt  as  held  by  Hort  in  WH  II,  App.,  p.  100. 
The  participle  is  very  likely  future. 

THE   FUTURE    PARTICIPLE 

All  five  of  the  cases  of  the  future  participle  refer  to  a  future  action,  four 
adverbials  denoting  purpose  and  one  ascriptive  describing  what  is  to  occur 
in  the  future. 

THE    PERFECT   PARTICIPLE 

The  perfect  participle  usually  refers  to  a  past  action  and  its  resulting 
state.  In  the  Book  of  Acts  the  perfect  participle  of  four  verbs  is  used  as 
a  present  participle,  namely,  of  oTBa,  crwolBa,  larrjfxi,  Trapio-TrjfjLi,  there 
being  3  cases  of  the  first,  2  of  the  second,  9  of  the  third,  and  2  of  the  fourth — 
16  in  all.  In  the  other  80  cases  the  perfect  participle  refers  to  a  past  action 
and  its  resulting  state.  Except  in  2:13,  "filled  with  new  wine,"  the  per- 
fect seems  to  refer  almost  exclusively  to  the  resulting  state. 

1  17: 13a,  13&  may  be  purpose  and  so  future. 

2  arevicras  refers  apparently  to  simultaneous  action  in  3:4;  6:15;  7:55;  10:4; 
11:6;    13:9;    14:9;    23:1. 

3  Several  aorist  participles  refer  to  action  begun  in  the  past  and  continued  into  the 
present,  e.  g.,  14:2,  lib,  20a,  etc. 


CHAPTER  IX 

A  COMPLETE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  PARTICIPLES  IN  THE 
BOOK  OF  ACTS 

Sec.  72.     Preliminary  Statement 

In  this  chapter  we  purpose  to  give  a  detailed  classification  of  all  the 
participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Heretofore  we  have  discussed  merely  the 
general  classification — the  three  main  classes,  ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  com- 
plementary. Here  the  subclasses  of  the  three  main  divisions  are  given,  so 
that  the  student  interested  may  see  at  a  glance  where  each  participle 
belongs. 

For  details  of  the  category  adopted  see  Sec.  n.  For  the  method  of 
locating  the  participles  see  first  paragraph,  Sec.  62. 

Sec.  73.    The  Ascriptive  Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  1-12 
restrictive  attributive 

1:12a,  23;  2:2,  36,  10,  22;  3:2a,  26,  11b,  20;  4:12,  36a;  5:176,  22a1; 
6:9a;  7:26a,  58ft;  8:10b,  26b;  9:7a,  11b,  22a,  326;  10:2a,  7a,  17a,  186; 
n:  1,  11,  13c,  196,  22,  29;   12:106,  12b,  25c;  total,  36. 

DESCRIPTIVE   ATTRIBUTIVE 

1:116,  16a,  21;  2:23a;  4:11a,  116,  14c;  5:7a;  6:3,  11a,  13a;  7:356, 
37»  386,  38c;  8:12;  9:26,  176,  216?,  ^a,  41c;  10:26,  2c,  2d,  11c,  22a,  226; 
10:370,41;   11:36,  5c,  21;   12:66;  total,  33. 

PREDICATIVE   ASCRIPTIVE 

1:10a,  126,  13,  14,  17;  2:3a,  5,  136,  29,  42;  4-3lb,  36^*  5:25^  25c> 
8:1,  9a,  96,  136,  16a,  166,  28a,  286;  9:9,  28a,  286,  336;  io:i962,  24a,  30; 
11:5a;  12:5,  6a,  i2f,  i2d,  20a;   total,  35. 

SUBSTANTIVE   ASCRIPTIVE 

The  most  of  these  participles  are  equivalent  to  relative  propositions. 

1  :T,a,  166,  19,  20;  2:76,  9,  146,  163,  41,  44,47c;  3:2c,  10a3,  106;  4:4, 166, 
21^,246,  25,32a,  326,  346;  5:5c,  76,9, 11,  14,  166,  32;  6:96%  156;  7:10,  24c, 
27a,  38a3,  44,  52;  8:4a,  6,  7a,  7c,  32;  9:2a,  14,  21a,  2163,  21c,  35;  10:7c, 
336,  35#,  356,  38c,  42a3,  426,  43,  446;  11:19a,  2864;  12:96;  total,  60. 

1  May  be  adverbial. 

2  Copula  omitted. 

3  Also  predicative. 

4  Participle  in  etymology  used  as  pure  substantive. 

36 


COMPLETE   CLASSIFICATION  OF   THE   PARTICIPLES  37 

Sec.  74.    Ascriptive  Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  13-28 
restrictive  attributive 
13:1a,  16,  441;  14:13a,  16;    15:226,  37;    16:36,   136;    17:19c,    18:2b; 

19:17;     20:9a,    196;     21:26,    266,   38a,   386;     22:126,    25;     23:11a;     24:246, 

256;  25:76,  24a;   27:86,  14,  166,    28:11;   total,  29. 

DESCRIPTIVE   ATTRIBUTIVE 

i3:27c.  32>  34,  43&>  5°5  l4-2,  36,  156,  15c;  15:16a,  18,  22c,  26;  16:4, 
166;  17:21,  266;  18: 76%  24;  19:11,  13a,  16c,  24;  20:12,  22a,  32a;  21 :8c, 
23,25a;  22:3a,  36,  y,  3d,  $d,  12a;  23:3a,  256;  24:27c;  25:19;  26:4,6a, 
22d3;  27:26,  66,  12c,  39;   28:2a,  2c,  16;   total,  49. 

PREDICATIVE   ASCRIPTIVE 
13:11a,  486;    14:7,  26;     16:9a,  96,  9C,   12;     18:7c,  25a;     19:14,  32,  366, 

36c;    20:8,  gb4,  13c;    21:3c,  95,  29,  336;    22:19a,  196,  20a,  206,  20c,  29c; 
25:10,  146;   26:266;   total,  30. 

SUBSTANTIVE   ASCRIPTIVE 

13:126,  16c,  26,  27a,  29a6,  31,  39,  40,  456;  14:12;  15:5a,  166,  19,  21a, 
336,  38a,  386;  16:116,  14a,  146;  17:6c,  6d,  15a,  17a,  176,  20,  24a,  31a7; 
18:2yd;  19:46,  10,  12,  136,  18a,  19a,  226,  26c,  277,  37;  20:156,  15c,  20, 
226,  306,  326,  34,  356;  21:18,  206,  286;  22:5c,  9a,  96,  116,  19c,  2od,  29a; 
23:2,  36,  y,  4,  13,  31a;  24:56,  5c,  14a8,  146,  15,  25J;  25:16;  26:66s,  136, 
18,  226s,  29,  30;  27:11,  246,  4od,  436;  28:8a,  96,  17a,  24,  30;  total,  85. 
Sec.  75.    Adverbial  Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  1-12 

For  particulars  concerning  the  subclasses  of  adverbial  participles  see 
Sec.  n. 

THE   GENERAL  ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLE 

1:3c,  4a,  6a,  96,  15;  2:14a,  46a,  466,  47a,  476;  3:4,  7,  8a,  11a,  26a; 
4:7,  15,  18,  21a,  34a,  376;  5:2a,  26,  56,  6a,  66,  10a,  106,  17a,  19,  20,  226, 
25a,  26,  27,  34,  40a,  406;  6:2a,  26,  6,  12;  7:4,  14,  19,  45,  57,  58a,  59a,  596, 
60a;  8:5,  76,  15,  25a,  256,  27a,  30a,  31,  35a,  356,  40;   9:16,  4a,  na»,   17a, 

1  Secondary  reading,  ixof^vtp  (WH). 

2  May  be  regarded  as  substantive  in  apposition  with  'lovcrrov. 

3  Loose  construction  and  uncertain  as  to  use. 

4  Copula  omitted. 

s  May  be  attributive. 

6  Reading  somewhat  doubtful  (WH). 

7  Participle  in  etymology  used  as  pure  substantive. 

8  Possibly  adverbial. 

9  Secondary  reading  (WH),  but  well  attested  (Tisch.). 


38  THE  PARTICIPLE  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 

18a,  186,  25a,  260,  27,  32a,  37a,  376,  39a,  40a,  406,  40c,  41a,  416;  10:7ft, 
10,  13,  176,  18a,  20a,  21,  23a,  236,  246,  25a,  256,  27a,  34;  11:4a,  6,  76, 
200,  230,  28a,  30;  12:4a,  46,  7a,  9a,  10a,  ioc,  12a,  146,  166,  17a,  176,  19c, 
igd,  21a,  216,  23,  25a,  256;  total,  119. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   TIME 
i:2,  9a,  106,  22;    3:3a;    4:23;    5:4a1,  40,  210,  23a1;    6:i;     7:2,  I2a,  26b, 

30,310,600;  8:130,14;  9:1a,  396,  39c,  400*;  10:8,90,96,190,376,440;  11: 
26;    12:11,  13,  18;   total,  t,3- 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   CAUSE 

i:8a,  18;  2:60,  30a,  306,  310,  330,  336,  37;  3:5,  i20,  1263;  4:1,  8, 
130,  136,  140,  216,  24a,  310;  5:5a,  21a,  33;  7:9,  240,  31a,  32,  54,  55a; 
8:13c,  18;  9:76,  7c,  266,  30,  380,  386;  10:29;  ii:i7>  l8a>  23&/  I2:3>  4C, 
190,  196,  206;   total,  46. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF  MANNER   OR   MEANS 

i  :3&,  66,  11a,  24;  2:7a,  12,  130,  236,  24,  40;  3:86,  8c,  8d,  25;  4:2,  16a, 
19;  5:160,  230,  28,  29,  30,  36,  41;  6:15a;  7 :24a',  26c,  276,  344,  35a,  36, 
40,  556;  8:30,  36,  46,  100,  106,  19,  24,  26a,  34,  39;  9:86,  226,  256,  29,  310, 
316,  36,  38c,  39c,  39J;  10:40,  46,  206,  26,  36s,  38a,  386,  39;  11:30,  46,  12, 
186,  19c,  206;   12:76;  total,  68. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   CONCESSION 

3:i3;  4:37a>*  7:5>2I5  9:8a;   12:14a;  total,  6. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLE    OF   CONDITION 
ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   PURPOSE 

3:266;   8:276;   total,  2. 

Sec.  76.    Adverbial  Participles  in  Acts,  Chaps.  13-28 
general  adverbial  participles 

13:5,  6,  7,  96,  Il6,  13a,  136,  140,  146,  160,  166,  19,  220,  296,  426,  43O, 
51;    14:96,  136,  19O,  196,  200,  206,  2IO,  2l6,  230,  236,  24,  25,  270,  276;  15:1, 

30,  76,  22a,  23,  256,  30a,  306,  33a,  36,  39,  40a,  406;  16:30,  7,  8,  gd,  no, 
130,  156,  170,  186,  196,  20a,  22,  23a,  236,  24,  25,  27^,  290,  30,  33,  340,  36, 
37<*.  37c,  39a>  39°>  400;    17:1,  56,  5c,  50*,  8,  9,  10,  156,  19a,  22,  23a,  236, 

1  May  be  condition  (Winer). 

2  Time  also.  3  Supposed  cause  with  us. 

4  After  the  Septuagint  which  follows  the  Hebrew  infinitive  absolute. 

5  Secondary  reading  (WH),  but  well  attested  (Tisch.). 

6  Has  a  well-attested  secondary  reading  (WH). 


COMPLETE   CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE    PARTICIPLES  39 

26a,  341;  18:1,  6c,  ya,  8,  17,  186,  18c1,  19,  21a,  216,  22a,  22b,  22c,  23a, 
236,  276;  19:1,  5,  6,  8a,  gb,  16a,  igb,  21a,  21b,  22a,  25,  28a,  286,  29,  316, 
33a>  33b,  34b2,  35a;  20:1a,  ib,  ic,  2a,  2b,  5,  ya,  10a,  106,  13a3,  14,  15a, 
17,  3&b,  37;  21:2c,  36,  4,  50,  56,  5c,  sd,  7b,  8a,  86,  11a,  11b,  11c,  14b,  15, 
19,  24a,  256,  26a,  26a1,  30,  32a3,  33a,  40a,  40b;  22:10,  13a,  136,  160,  166, 
24,  266,  27,  306;  23:1,  ga,  10c,  11b,  12b,  14,  16b,  16c,  17,  18a,  18b,  iga, 
igb,  22,  23,  25a,  27c,  30?),  316,  32,  33a,  33b,  34a,  346,  34c,  35;  24:23, 
24a,  25c,  266;  25:1,  36,  5,  6b,  6c,  yd,  gc,  1363,  170,  17c;  26:2a,  10a,  14a,  17, 
21,  31a;  27:2a,  2c,  3ft,  4,  5,  6a,  13c,  15c,  17a,  216,  21c,  28a,  28ft,  28c,  296, 
35°>  35b,  35c,  36,  40a,  40c,  41a,  416;  28:26,  5,  6d,  7,  8b,  8c,  8d,  ga,  12, 
13a,  136,  14,  15c,  18,  21,  23a;  total,  254. 

ADVERBIAL  PARTICIPLES   OF   TIME 

13:2a,  2b,  $a,  36,  3c,  24,  36;  15:4,3!;  16:16a,  27a,  35a,  40b;  17:16a; 
18:12,  14,  18a,  26,  27a,  27c;  19:2,  34a,  406;  20:3a,  3c,  gc,  11a,  11b,  11c, 
nd,  36a;  21:1a,  2a,  T,a,  7a,  10,  17,  26c,  31,  37,  40c;  22:5a,  6a,  6b,  17a, 
17b,  26a;  23:74,  12a,  16a,  30a;  24:2a,  10a,  20,  21,  255,  27a;  25:6a,  7a, 
12,  13a,  15a,  17a,  18,  23a,  236,  26,  27;  26:106,  12,  24;  27:9a,  126,  21a,  27, 
38a,  406,  43c;  28:1,  3a,  36,  3c,  6a,  10,  176,  256;  total,  86. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   CAUSE 

13:4,  9a,  12a,  1 2c,  27b,  45a,  48a;  14:6,  gc,  1  ia,  14a,  1 7a v  19c;  15:2,  7a, 
95,  25a,  3215;  16:6,  10,  18a,  19a,  20b6,  216,  276,  27c,  296,  346,  38;  17:5a, 
6a,  16b,  24b,  25a7,  256,  29,  316,  32;  18:2a,  6a,  66,  256;  19:31a,  36a,  40a8; 
20:36,  76,  gd8,  136,  13d,  31a,  38;  21:14a,  20a,  27,  326,  34;  22:2,  23a,  236, 
23c,  296,  30a;  23:6,  10a,  106,  15,  18c6,  20,  27a,  276,  27^,  28;  24:2c,  2d, 
5a,  ioc,  11a,  22a,  25a,  26a,  276;  25:3a,  9a,  20,  21,  23c,  25;  26:26,  3,  5,  116, 
22a;  27:3a,  7a,  76,  7c,  gb,  12a,  13a,  136,  15a,  156,  17c,  18,  20a,  206,  29a, 
30a,  306,  30c7,  43a;    28:66,  15a,  156,  19a,  1967,  25a;   total,  118. 

ADVERBIAL   PARTICIPLES   OF   MANNER   OR   MEANS 

13:8,  15,  226,  27^,  33,  43c,  45c,  46;  14:3a,  3c,  116,  iic,  146,  14c,  15a, 
176,  17c,  18,  22a,  226,-  15:36,  56,  8,  13,  216,  24,  35a,  356,  41;  16:15a,  16c, 
176,  28,  356;  17:3a,  36,  66,  7,  11,  130^,  1369,  196,  23c,  31c;  18:5,  11,  13,  23c, 
28;  19:4a,  86,  8c,  9a,  9c,  13c,  15, 166, 186,  18c,  26a,  266,  28c;  20:19a,  21,  23, 
26,  296,  30a6,  35a;    21:16,  13a,  136,  16,  21,  246,  28a,  36,  4od;    22:4a,  46, 

1  Possibly  cause.  6  Possibly  ascriptive. 

2  Loose  construction.     Some  editors  have  xpafrvrti.  i  Supposed  cause  with  in. 

3  Doubtful  reading  (WII  >.  8  Doubtful  reading  (WH). 

4  (iirovTos  in  the  margin  (WH).  9  Probably  purpose,  too. 
s  May  be  only  general. 


40  i  "I.   PARI  i'  ii'i.i.    i,\    i  in     BOOK    <>i    A<  1 8 

ii'/,  -■.■,  .-'-',     .• ',   ')!/,  i  .■< ,  .-I,  ,'.(,    .'i    .'A,    ',  ';,    ■  ■//,     ■  ,    JCf  obf  :\",  ij>,  246/ 

-■'•  y,  1 '",  »o,  •  ■<     •'«/    ',  ib,    17  8j    to,  E60,  1//',  !•/'/,  34a,  ', '//,  ','/,  \&b, 
■  $,  ■  |< ,  260,  »6&,  ',!'/,  ',1/';  total,  1 18 

ADVERBIAL   PARTK  IPLI  '■  "i    I  ONI  1      EO 

tj  »8;  16  'j1',  1/  17,  |o;  i8  20,  •  / ,  19  jo;  20  -•-■',"  28  \'>,  17c; 
total,  to 

ADVERBIAL   PARI  [(  EPL1      01    C0NDI1 IOM 
i  ,   jq;    [g  ntf,    total,  1 

ADVERBIAL   PAB1  [(  [PL]   ■  01    PL1  RP0S1 

i  ,   .■/ ,    12    /<.    'i   i  i/»,  i  j  ;   total,  4. 

■,i.    77     'I'm.  Complementary   Participle!  r.   Acts,  Ceapb.   i  \*' 

gUBJECTlVl     COMPLEMENT  Ml\    PARI  U  in  i  :, 

,  -i -•(/,  .| tb;  <>  i  'A    i"  ',',".    i  ■  i'"/,   total,  •,- 

OBJE(  iivi     C0MPLEM]    II  1 8 '.    PAB  PICIPL1 

i  in,  i  './-,  ii,  ',  'J',')",  ')!'.  I  i|'',  ,  ••;'',  23c;  6  11/',  1  1,  y  1//'', 
•  \l>,  ,y,  -/></,  -/.A,  8  1  •;</,  ■•',',  ',"/'.'  '>  •!'',  '•'",  I3&;  i'»  ','',  'A  '"',  tl6, 
•///,    |'../,    I'.A,     1  1     ,A,  ;-/,   1  ;<i,   1  '//;    total,    ',',■ 

,1  <      78      Tin    <  lOMPLI  mi    .  1    1   .    PaBTICIPLES  IN     \<  1    ,   <   n  w       1  j    28 
iUBJECTIV]     CO  M-i  1   .11    .  1  \i--\    PAB  PICIPL1   I 

1  j  i",    10  \ib,    ■•  1    ■  ■■ .    ■  1   j  \b;  total,  4. 

OBJECTIVJ    I  0MP1  EMI  N  I  AB\    PAB  1 i<  in  i ■:. 

1  1  ga,    1,  "',    [6   •/',    I/  1'"'.    i<;  J5&ay    22:7,  [8;    23:39a,  296; 

a  1  1.,/..'  1  .■-/,  1  i/>,  I.;,    ■'.  1  ;.i,  1  |A,    18   i</,  6(  ';  total,  iy. 

Sec    79      v    Qbdebly  Pbesentation  01  All  rsi    Participles 

r:  1  in  B001  "i  Acts 
The  following  symbols  are  used  to  designate  the  classes  and  subclasses  of 
participles  \  '  denotes  ascriptive;  "a,  attributive  ascriptive;  *p,  predi 
eatlve  ascriptive;  '  ,  substantive  ascriptive.  A  |  denotes  adverbial; 
1 1; .  general;  |/,  temporal;  |<,  causal;  \mt  mannei  oi  means;  \cs,  con 
.,    live;    I-",  conditional;    |/\  purpose     A     I   denotes  complementary; 

I  \,  subjei  live iplementary;   \o,  objective  complementary 

The  partii  iple  is  located  in  iin-  vice  by  iii<  same  method  as  in  the  resl 
..i  this  1  haptei 

'   1  |/,  w  *$,  \b  \»i.  \t  \.<:,  \<i  fg,6a  \g,6b  \m,B  \c,ga  \/,<>i>  \r,  10a  *p, 

>  I'.. 1  ii>. ■  .1. 1. hi  .  .1 . 1..  Hi.    hi..  1.1    •  .  ol  1 1 mplementftrj  partlclpli  ice  Set    1 1 

•  1 1,,. .  1  dl  • k  -I  whli  h  iii-  pi  .ii-  6  can  1  In  the  Bool  ol   \.  1 1 


I  0MP1  in     'i  \',Mi  K  ■  \  i  [ON    "i     i  in     PARI  kiii  ES  |i 

iof>  |7,    mi   \m,    nb  *./,    ii<    |<\    i  Id  '</,    i  l6  '/'■    I  I   '/'•    I  I   '  /'•  I  >   i '.'■    ''"'  '''. 
in  b  :+s,   1  y  •/>,    [8  \i  ,   [9  I  s,    10  *J,    •  i    f  </,    •  •   |/,    •  ;   '•a,    'I   |  hi. 

:    :  *«/,    V'  '  /',    |6*fl,    5  '/'•'"'  i'  »  66  I  "■    /'•'  i  '"•    /'''  ( ■■   9  '  '•    "'  f ''.    ii    !". 

12  |;;/,    iw|'",    l$b*p,    i|''i\'.    [46  '  •.    1''  ;  ■,    ■■'''!.    ••J'\in,  ■\\111,    ■>)'!•, 

joa  (*( .  (oft  i.  .  ;i  i. .  1  ;./  |«. ,;  |6  i< ,  \]  \e,  \o  \m,  m  *s,  42  *p,  \\  *s,  46a  |.<:. 
466  !<:•  1/"  \g,  \lb 

a,  16  :.>,   k  ;  .  ;a  |/,  \b  |",  1  i.':,  ;  fc,                  .  86  fm,  8<  |"w, 

<S,/    j  ;;/,    pa    |".    96   j«,     C0(2  *5,  K  Vi   I  ■.,    1  k/    I  r,     i  i /«   <</,  [aflfc,     1   l6  ('  ,  1  ■;  I'  •, 
20  *</,  3  ,   i  W,    -ixi   I;;,  266  I/'. 

4:1    k    3  |  ///,     |  '  '■,    7  I..1;,  8  \<  ,    1  \d  *a,    lib  *fl,  1  •  '</,    1  ;</  j-  ,  !■;/'(', 

1  i''  ("( .  1  1''  J".  1  I-  '</,  1  ,  i;:,  [6fl  i  w,  [66  '  ,  t8  i;;,  tg  \m,  21a  i/;.  •  1/'  i< . 

•■  k   ;   ,    ■  1  I/,    ■  |(;  |r ,    ■  |/<  1  .,  •  ,  I  •.,    1  k/  \i ,    1 1/'  1  />,  1  !a  !  ■     :'/''..  1 1</  i  <;, 

346  '"■•  ;'"'  !|'.  [66  '/'.  ;,''  h  •  ■>''  \i> 

,    \a  \g,  16  i*.\  |./  i/,  |A  i/,  ;a  \e,  \b  \g,  ;<  ;  ■..  6a  I..-;.  66  I.-;.  7a  »«/.  76  ' .. 
9*s,  k  id  j;;,  to6  f£,  m  ;  .    u  !  .    *  ,  i"1.  [6a  fm,  [66  *s,  tja*g,  [76  *a, 

[Q    ,    ;.       ■       ,    ;,      ■  K/     j<  ,      ■  l/'    j/,      ■    \Q     '•!,      I    I  /'    |  g  ,      I   ;</    j  W ,      '   ;/'    |<'.      '   ','     !",      I  jrf    I  '. 

■  ,d  i':.   •  ;6  '/',   ■  ;<  '/'■   •'•  I"      ,  \g,     '■  I'".    '9  \m>    '■"  Ni    '• '  '  •■    13  h  ■ 
J 1  i\\  |6  !"»,  \oa  \g,  \ob  i;;,  m  \m,  1  ta  |  ■,  1  \b  \. 

k   1  i/,  \a  i:;,  •/-  i ;;,  ;  *a,6  \g,go  *a,gb  '  .,  [ia  (",  1 1/'  |",  1  ■  i :;,  1  \a  '</, 
[36  I  -,   1  1  I",   1  ,-/  \»i,   1  s''  *-v. 

7:2  |/,   |   j  I;,   ,   j-  .,  9  \c,  i"  j    ,  1  \Q  \l,  1  16  j  ",  1  I   \g}  [9  I;;.    ■  1    i<  • ,   14a  |'  , 
246^)   'I'   '  ■•   'I'/  i";.   ''"'  '''.   166  |/,   •'"   \m,   ■)<'  '  .,   •;/'  i»/,  }0  j/,   [ia  I-, 
Ji6  \t,   \2%   ;i  \>»,  ;  ;a  I'm,   ;  ;6  !.'.   |6  fm,   ;y  "a 
I-  i"/.  11  ;  .   1  ,  i  ■:.  5  ■  <•.    ,1  I*.  5  ;a  \c,    ,  ;6  \mt  5  ;<  I-.    ;6a  !<-,    ;66  fa, 
1      ia  !■;,   ;96  i;:,  60a  \g,  606  j/ 

K:i  +/;,  3a  \m,  ■;/'  |*m,   |"  '  ••,  46  |"W,  5  i  ■;.  6       .  ,•'         76  i  ,\  ;-    '    .  9a  */'■ 

96  *p,  i'"/  i»/,  [06  |»/,  1  i*a,  1  \a  \i,  1  (6  '/'.  1  '.'  i'.  1  '.(/  !"■  '  1  \'-  > 
i6a*p,  i6b*p,  iS\c,  k;  I  in,   ■  ;\<>,  ■  1  i  in,   ■  ,"  i  •;,   156  fg,   16a  I  in,   >,6b  *a, 

•,■'!•:    176  I  /'.   ';;''  ;  /'.   ■;;/'  :  /'.  [i  ia  i/;,  jo6  !",  p  i ':.  [2  *.y,  ■,  1  i  w, 
j  ;6  \g,  19  I'm,  1    - 

9    k;   |/,     [6  i ;;,    20  '    ,     ■'''■/      \Q   ■  [,     \b   \o     ,■'      '      ,  b   •  '   '><    . 

86 fm,  9 *p,  iK/|;;,  [i6*a,  [2a|a,  t2b%o,  i  i  '  ,  i , •'  i      [76    a 

lid  *5,      ■:/'',     IIC*5,      ■  k/  '.;,      I  ■-;    •■  <i ,      ■  \b  \  m  '  \b  \ttt, 

I',    ■')   i  m,    [0   i'  ,    I  k/    I  W,    I  i;'   I  !>• . 

I  '/.  i '/'  '/'.  '.  I  !  '.  '/'  i"  '  I'". 

[96  |/,  |9<  l-w,  ;w'/  \m,  ;<><■  \i    1  /  \i,  \ia  \g, 
[lb  i  ■;.  m 

[o                  a,        a     d    '    \a  \<>,  \b  I".  4a  i m,  46  i//>.  7a  'w.  76  i  :. 

'     ■,./     (/.    96     i/,     [O    !    '.     I   K/     !",     I   [6    I".     I   K      \l.      I  i  I  ,./ 

c8a  I/;,  [86 *a,  [9a  \t,  igb  +pf  20a  \g,   so6  ("w,  11  f^  1 '''  ,;  ' 


42  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

236  t£>  24«  *P,  24b  t£>  25a  fg,  256  fg,  26  tw>  27a  t#>  27&  to,  29  fc,  30  */>, 
33a  Js,  336  *s,  34  t&  35a  %  35b  *s,  36  t«i  37«  *«,  376  t'»  38<*  Pn,  386  t», 
38c  *s,  39  f  w,  41  *a,  42a  *s,   426  *s,   43  *j,  44a  p,   446  *s,  46a  Jo,  46ft  Jo. 

1 1 : 1  *a,  3a  f  w,  36  *a,  4a  f  g,  4»  tw>  5a  *A  5^  +°>  5C  *a>  6  fg,  7a  Jo, 
76  fg,  11  *a,  12  fw,  13a  Jo,  130  Jo,  13c  *a,  17  ft,  18a  ft,  186  fm,  19a  *$, 
196  *a,  19c  fw,  20a  fg,  206  fw,  21  *a,  22  *a,  23a  fg,  230  ft,  26  fJ,  28a  fg, 
280  *5,  29  *a,  30  fg. 

12:3  ft,  4a  fg,  4&fg,  4^ft,  5*A  6a  *p,  66  *a,  7a  fg,  7*  tw>  9a  t& 
96*5,  10a  fg,  iob*a,  iot  fg,  11  f/,  12a  fg,  126*0,  i2c*p,  i2d*p,  13  f/, 
14a  fey,  146  fg,  1 6a  J5,  166  fg,  i7afg,  176  fg,  18  f/,  190  ft,  190  fc>  I9ct^> 
19^  fg,  20a  *p,  206  -jr,  21a  fg,  216  fg,  23  fg,  25a  fg,  256  fg,  25c  *a. 

13:  ia  *a,  16  *a,  2a  f/,  26  f/,  3a  f/,  3^  "fa  3C  %  4  tc>  5  t£>  6  t£>  7  t#> 
8  f  w,  90  ft,  96  fg,  10  J5,  na*p,  116  fg,  12a  ft,  126*5,  12c  fc,  13a  fg, 
136  fg,  14a  fg,  146  fg,  15  fw,  16a  fg,  166  fg,  i6t  *s,  19  fg,  22a  fg,  226  fw, 
24  f£,  26*5,  276  ft,  270?  fw,  27c  *a,  28  ft5,  290*5,  296  fg,  31*5,  32*0, 
33  tw>  34  *a,  36  f>  39  %  4o  *5,  42  fg,  43<*  t£>  43&  *%  43c  tw>  44  *<*,  45fl  tc> 

456  *5,  45C  fw,  46  fm,  48a  ft,  486  *^>,  50  *0,  51  fg. 

14:2  *a,  3a  fw,  36  *o,  3c  fw,  6  ft,  7  *p,  ga  Jo,  96  fg,  9c  ft,  11a  ft, 
116  fw,  ntfw,  12*5,  130*0,  136  fg,  14a  ft,  146  fw,  14c  fm,  15a  fw, 
156*0,  15c  *a,  16*0,  170  ft,  176  fw,  17c  fw,  18  fw,  19a  fg,  196  fg, 
19c  fc,  200  fg,  206  fg,  210  fg,  216  fg,  220  fw,  226  fw,  230  fg,  236  fg, 
24  fg,  25  fg,  26  *p,  270  fg,  276  fg. 

15: 1  t&  2  ft,  30  fg,  36  fw,  4  f/,  50  *5,  56  fw,  70  ft,  76  fg,  8  fw,  9  ft, 
12  Jo,  13  fm,  16a  *a,  166*5,  18  *a,  19*5,  210*5,  216  fw,  220  fg,  226*0, 
22t  *o,  23  fg,  24  f w,  250  ft,  256  fg,  26  *o,  27  -fp,  29  fto,  300  fg,  306  fg, 
31  t'i  32  %  330  fg,  336  *5,  350  fw,  356  fw,  36  fg,  37  *o,  380  *5,  386  *5, 
39  tS,  4oo  fg,  406  fg,  41  pn- 

!6:3fl  t£>  36  *fl.  4  *a,  6  ft,  7  fg,  8  fg,  90  *p,  96  */>,  9c  */»,  90!  fg,  10  ft, 
nafg,  116*5,  12  *p,  130  fg,  136*0,  140*5,  146*5,  15a  fm,  156  fg,  160  f/, 
166*0,  i6t  f /«,  170  fg,  176  f?»,  180  ft,  186  fg,  190  ft,  196  fg,  200  fg, 
206  ft,  21  ft,  22  fg,  23a  fg,  236  fg,  24  fg,  25  fg,  270  %  276  ft,  27c  Jo, 
27J  fg,  27t  ft,  28  pn,  29a  fg,  296  ft,  30  fg,  33  fg,  340  fg,  346  ft,  35a  p, 
35  b  Ph  36  fg,  37a  t?>  376  t«>  37^  t£>  38  P,  39a  t^»  39&  t^,  4oofg,  406  f/. 

x7:it^  3atw>  3bPn>  5a  P,  56  fg,  5tfg,  sJfg,  60  ft,  66  fw,  6c  *s, 
6d*s,  7fw,  8fg,  9fg,  10  fg,  11  fw,  130  fw,  136  fw,  150*5,  156  fg, 
160  f/,  166  ft,  i6t  Jo,  170*5,  176*5,  19a  fg,  196  fm,  i9t  *o,  20*5,  21  *a, 
22  fg,  23a  fg,  236  fg,  230  fm,  240*5,  246  ft,  250  ft,  256  ft,  26a  fg,  266*0, 

27  t",  29  tc,  3°  t«>  3ia  **,  3l6  tc?  3ic  Vn,   32  fc,  34  fg- 

18: 1  fg,  2a  ft,  26  *o,  5  fm,  6a  ft,  66  ft,  6t  fg,  7a  fg,  76  *a,  7t  *p,  8  fg, 

li   fw.,   12  f/,   13  fw,  14  f/,  17  fg,  l80  f/,  l86  fg,  l8tfg,  19  fg,  20fC5, 


COMPLETE   CLASSIFICATION   OF  THE   PARTICIPLES  43 

2iafg,    2l6  fg,    2icfc0,    22a  fg,    22b  fg,     22C  fg,     23a  fg,     236  fg,     23C  fw, 

24*0,  25a  *p,  25b  fc,  25c  fcs,  26  f/,  27a  f/,  276  fg,  27c  f/,  2J(1*S,   28  fw. 

19:1  fg,  2  f/,  4a  fw,  46*5,  5  fg,  6  fg,  8a  fg,  86  fw,  8c  fw,  9a  fw, 
96  fg,  9c  fw,  10%,  ii*c,  1.2*5,  13a  *a,  136*5,  13c  fw,  14  *p,  15  fw, 
16a  fg,  166  fw,  16c  *a,  17  *a,  18a  *5,  186  fw,  18c  fw,  19a  *s,  igb  fg,  21a  fg, 
21b  fg,  22a  fg,  226  *s,  24  *a,  25  fg,  26a  fw,  26ft  fw,  26c  *s,  27  *s,  28a  fg, 
286  fg,  28c  fw,  29  fg,  30  fc5,  31a  fc,  316  fg,  32  *p,  33a  fg,  2,3b  fg,  34a  f/, 
34&  t£>  35fl  t#>  356  U,  36a  fc,  366  */>,  36c  *p,  37  *5,  400  fc,  40ft  f /. 

20:  ia  fg,  16  fg,  ic  fg,  2a  fg,  2b  fg,  3a  f/,  36  fc,  3c  f/,  5  fg,  7a  fg,  70  fc, 
8  *p,  ga  *a,  96  *p,  gc  p,  gd  fc,  10a  fg,  10b  fg,  11a  p,  116  f/,  ncf/,  na'ftf, 
i2*c,  13a  fg,  136  fc,  13c  *p,  13d  p,  14  fg,  150  fg,  156*5,  15c  *s,  17  fg, 
19a  fw,  196  *a,  20  *5,  21  fw,  22a  *a,  226  *5,  22c  ps,  23  fw,  26  fw,  29  fw, 
30a  fw,  306  *s,  31a  p,  31b  %s,  32a  *a,  32b  *s,  34  *s,  35a  fw,  356  *5,  36a  p., 
366  fg,  37  ig,  38  fc 

2i:iaf/,  16  fw,  2a  p,  2b  *a,  2c  fg,  3a  f/,  36  fg,  3c  */>,  4  fg,  5a  fg, 
5&t£>  5^f£,  5^te  7«t<>  7&t£>  8at£,  86  fg,  8c  *a,  9  */>,  10  p,  nafg, 
116  fg,  ncfg,  130  fw,  136  fw,  14a  p,  146  fg,  15  fg,  16  fw,  17  f/,  18*5, 
19  fg,  20a  fc,  206  *s,  21  fw,  23  *a,  24a  fg,  246  fw,  25a  *a,  256  fg,  26a  fg, 
266  *a,  26c  p,  26d  fg,  27  fc,  28a  fw,  286*5,  29  */»,  30  fg,  31  p,  32a  fg, 
326  fc,  32c  J5,  33a  fg,  336  *p,  34  fc,  36  fw,  37  p,  38a  *a,  386  *a,  40a  fg, 
406  fg,  40c  p,  40 J  fw. 

22 : 2  fc,  3a  *a,  36  *a,  3c  *a,  3c?  *a,  4a  f w,  46  fw,  5a  f/,  56  f/>,  5c  *s, 
$d  *a,  6a  f/,  66  f/,  7  Jo,  9a  *s,  96  *5,  10  fg,  ua  fw,  116  *5,  12a  *a,  126  *a, 
13a  fg,  136  fg,  16a  fg,  166  fg,  17a  p,  176  f/,  18  Jo,  iga  *p,  196  *p,  19c  *v, 
2oa*p,  206  */>,  20c  */>,  2od  *5,  22  fw,  23a  fc,  236  fc,  23c  fc,  24  fg,  25  *a, 
26a  p,  266  fg,  26c  fw,  27  fg,  29a  *s,  296  fc,  29c  *p,  30a  fc,  306  fg. 

23 : 1  fg,  2  *s,  3a  *a,  36  *s,  3c  *s,  4  *s,  6  fc,  7  f /,  9a  fg,  96  fw,  10a  fc, 
106  fc,  ioc  fg,  ua  *a,  116  fg,  12a  p,  126  fg,  12c  fw,  13  *s,  14  fg,  15  fc, 
1 6a  f/,  166  fg,  1 6c  fg,  17  fg,  1 8a  fg,  186  fg,  18c  fc,  19a  fg,  196  fg,  20  fc, 
21  fw,  22  fg,  23  fg,  24  fw,  25a  fg,  256  *a,  27a  fc,  276  fc,  27c  fg,  27^  fc, 
28  fc,  29a  Jo,  296  Jo,  30a  p,  306  fg,  31a  *s,  31b  fg,  32  fg,  33a  fg,  336  fg, 
34a  fg,  346  fg,  34c  fg,  35  fg. 

24:2a  p,  2b  pn,  2Cp,  2dp,  5a  fc,  56*5,  5c  *s,  8  fw,  9  f w,  10a  p, 
106  Jo,  ioc  fc,  nafc,  116  -fp,  12a  Jo,  126  Jo,  14a  *s,  146*5,  15*5,  17  ip, 
18  Jo,  20  p,  21  p,  22a  fc,  226  fw,  23  fg,  24a  fg,  246  *a,  25a  fc,  256*0, 
25c  fg,  25a*  *s,  2$e  p,  26a  fc,  266  fg,  27a  p,  276  fc,  27c  *a. 

25 : 1  fg,  3a  p,  36  fg,  5  fg,  6a  p,  66  fg,  6c  fg,  7a  f/,  76  *a,  jc  fw,  7a1  fg, 
9a  fc,  96  fw,  9c  fg,  10  *p,  12  f/,  13a  f/,  136  fg,  14a  fw,  146*/*,  15a  p, 
156  fw,  16  *5,  17a  p,  176  fg,  17c  fg,  18  p,  19  *a,  20  fc,  21  fc,  23a  p,  236  p, 
23c  fc,  24a  *a,  246  fw,  25  fc,  26  p,  27  p. 


44  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

26 :  2a  f  g,  2b  f  c,  3  f  c,  4  *a,  5  f  c,  6a  *a,  6&  *s,  7  fm,  10a  f  g,  106  f /,  1  ia  f  w, 
ii&fc,  I2  %  I3a  t°,  13*  **,  i4»t^>  x4&  Jo,  x7  fg,  18*5,  20  f  ;w,  21  fg, 
22a  fc,  226  *s,  22c  \m,  22d  *a,  24  p,  26a  pn,  266  *^>,  29  *s,  30  *s,  31a  fg, 
31&  fra. 

27 :  2a  fg,  2*  *<*,  2c  fg,  3a  fc,  3*  t£>  4  fg,  5  t£,  6a  tg,  6b  *°,  7a  tr,  7*  tc, 
7c  fc,  8a  pn,  Sb  *a,  9a  f/,  96  fc,  10  fw,  11*5,  12a  fc,  12&  f/,  12c  *a, 
13a  fc,  136  t*j  !3C  tg,  14  *«,  i5a  tc,  IS*  tc,  r5c  tg,  l6a  tw>  l6*  *a,  i7<*  tg, 

I7&  fw,  17C  fc,  17a"  |W,  l8  ft,  20a  fc,  20&fc,  2iaf/,  21&fg,  2icfg,  24a  fw, 

246  *s,  27  f/,  28a  fg,  286  fg,  28c  fg,  29a  fc,  296  fg,  30a  fc,  30&  fc,  30c  fc, 
33a  "K  33*  fc>  33^  t>»,  35«  tg,  35*  tg,  35^  tg,  36  fg,  38a  ft  386  fw,  39  *a, 
40a  fg,  40&  f/,  40c  fg,  40^  **,  41a  fg,  416  fg,  42  fw,  43a  fc,  43&  *s,  43c  f*. 

28 : 1  f t,  2a  *a,  26  fg,  2c  *a,  3a  f /,  36  f /,  3c  f /,  4a  Jo,  4b  ps,  5  fg,  6a  f /, 
6&  fc,  6c  Jo,  6d  fg,  7  fg,  8a  *s,  8b  fg,  8c  fg,  U  fg,  9a  fg,  9&  %  10  ft 
11  *a,  12  fg,  13a  fg,  136  fg,  14  fg,  15a  fc,  15b  fc,  15c  fg,  16*  a,  17a  *s, 
176  f  J,  17c  fcs,  18  fg,  19a  fc,  196  fc,  21  fg,  23a  fg,  23^  fm,  23c  fw,  24  *s, 
25a  fc,  256  ft  26a  pn,  26b  pn,  30  *s,  31a  pn,  31  b  \m. 


PART  II 

INFERENCES  FROM  THE  FACTS  CONCERNING  THE 
PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  GREEK  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS 
Sec.  80.  Preliminary  Statement 
It  now  remains  to  synthesize  the  accumulated  facts  of  Part  I  and  see  to 
what  conclusions  they  naturally  lead.  There  are  five  problems  connected 
with  the  Book  of  Acts  on  which  the  participle  throws  more  or  less  light — 
the  nature  of  its  Greek,  its  sources,  its  unity,  its  authorship,  and  the  com- 
position of  its  addresses. 

What  bearing,  then,  have  the  facts  of  Part  I  on  the  nature  of  the  Greek 
in  which  the  Book  of  Acts  was  wrtiten  ? 

Sec.  8i.    The  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Compared  with 
That  of  the  Classical  Period 

Take  Thucydides,  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  Plato,  and  Demosthenes  as 
representative  authors  of  this  period.  We  find  (p.  10,  Part  I)  that  Thucy- 
dides averages  13  participles  per  page;1  Herodotus,  17 J;  Xenophon,  i2§; 
Plato,  io£;  and  Demosthenes,  iof.  The  average  ranges  from  io|  to 
17^,  the  general  average  for  these  classical  authors  being  ca.  i2f.  The 
Book  of  Acts  has  an  average  of  ca.  17^  per  page.  That  is,  ca.  40  per  cent, 
more  participles  are  found  in  the  Book  of  Acts  than  occur  in  the  great  classi- 
cal authors.  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  the  preponderance  of  narrative  in  the 
Book  of  Acts  helps  to  account  for  this  higher  average. 

If  we  compare  the  nature  of  the  participles  in  the  Book  of  Acts  with  that 
of  the  classical  authors,  we  find  that  the  ascriptive  participle  in  classical 
Greek  ranges  from  22 1  per  cent,  (in  Thucydides)  to  454  (in  Plato),  giving 
an  average  of  ca.  27^  per  cent.  The  Book  of  Acts  has  28!  per  cent,  ascrip- 
tive— a  little  greater  percentage  than  that  of  Thucydides  or  Herodotus, 
a  little  less  than  that  of  Plato  or  Demosthenes,  but  about  the  same  as  that 
of  Xenophon.  The  adverbials  in  the  classical  authors  range  from  50 1  per 
cent.  (Plato)  to  72 \  (Thucydides),  giving  a  general  average  of  ca.  62  per 
cent.     The  Book  of  Acts  has  nearly  68  per  cent,  adverbials — a  little  more 

1  Page  means  30  lines  throughout  this  treatise. 
45 


46  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

than  Xenophon,  a  little  less  than  Thucydides  or  Herodotus,  but  con- 
siderably more  than  Plato  or  Demosthenes  (probably  because  Acts  con- 
tains more  narrative).  The  complementary  participle  in  the  classical 
authors  ranges  from  4J  per  cent.  (Plato)  to  n\  per  cent.  (Demosthenes), 
averaging  for  classical  Greek  ca.  6f  per  cent.  The  Book  of  Acts  has  ca. 
4  per  cent,  complementary. 

Thus  we  see  the  Book  of  Acts  surpasses  in  frequency  of  participles  the 
general  average  of  the  classical  authors  and  is  excelled  by  only  one, 
Herodotus  (only  by  a  fraction  of  1  per  cent.).  In  its  proportion  of 
ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  complementary  participles  the  Book  of  Acts 
comes  fairly  near  to  the  general  average  found  in  the  classical  authors, 
except  that  in  its  complementary  participle  it  falls  below  the  lowest 
average  (that  of  Plato). 

Sec.  82.     The  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Compared  with 
That  of  the  Literary  kolvyj 

Polybius  averages  17I  per  page;  Strabo,  13J;  Plutarch,  14,  while 
Josephus  runs  up  to  20,  giving  an  average  for  the  literary  kolvyj  of  nearly 
i6\  (Acts  being  17^). 

Polybius  has  27$  per  cent,  ascriptive;  Strabo,  46!  per  cent.;  Josephus, 
16$  per  cent.;  Plutarch,  29  per  cent.,  a  general  average  of  30  per  cent. 
(Acts  having  28 \  per  cent.).  Polybius  has  6of  per  cent,  adverbial;  Strabo, 
51^;  Plutarch,  65I,  while  Josephus  reaches  78  per  cent.,  a  general  average 
of  nearly  66  (Acts  having  nearly  68  per  cent.).  The  complementary  par- 
ticiple is  less  frequent  in  the  literary  kolvtj  than  in  classical  Greek,  ranging 
from  iT9ff  (Strabo)  to  5!  (Plutarch).  Josephus  has  nearly  as  many  as 
Plutarch,  5^  per  cent.,  but  Polybius  has  only  2\  per  cent.  The  average  for 
the  literary  noivrj  is  3!  per  cent.  (Acts  less  than  4  per  cent.). 

Thus  we  see,  the  participles  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  as  to  frequency,  show 
about  the  same  Greek  that  we  find  in  literary  Koivr).  At  any  rate,  the  Greek 
of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  more  like  that  of  the  literary  Kotvrj  than  that  of  the 
classical  authors.  As  to  the  proportion  of  the  three  classes  of  participles, 
the  Book  of  Acts  has  just  a  few  less  ascriptives  and  just  a  few  more 
adverbials  than  the  average  in  the  literary  Koivr/,  the  complementary 
participle  being  of  about  the  same  frequency  in  both.  The  Book 
of  Acts  is  more  like  the  literary  koivtIj  than  classical  Greek  in  the  per- 
centage of  its  ascriptives  (proportion,  28J  in  Acts;  27J  in  literary  Koivrj;  33 
in  classical).  In  the  percentage  of  its  adverbials,  likewise,  the  Book  of  Acts 
is  closer  to  the  literary  Koivrj  than  to  the  classical  Greek  (proportion,  Acts, 
68;   literary  Koivrj,  66;  classical,  62).     There  is  a  still  greater  difference  in 


NATURE  OF  GREEK  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS  47 

complementary  participles  (Acts,  4  percent.;  literary  koivt;,  3^;  classical, 
6|)  between  the  Book  of  Acts  and  classical  Greek,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Book  of  Acts  and  literary  koivt;,  on  the  other  hand. 

Sec.  83.  The  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Compared  with  the 
Greek  of  the  Papyri  and  the  Septuagint 

From  p.  10  we  find  that  the  participles  in  the  Septuagint  average  only 
6£  per  page,  in  the  papyri,  a  little  over  6fy.  The  Septuagint  has  79  per 
cent,  ascriptive;  19^  per  cent,  adverbial;  1$  per  cent,  complementary. 
The  papyri  have  84^  per  cent,  ascriptive;  14  per  cent,  adverbial;  2 J 
per  cent,  complementary.  The  Book  of  Acts  averages  17^,  with  28 {  per 
cent,  ascriptive;  nearly  68  per  cent,  adverbial;  ca.  4  per  cent,  complemen- 
tary. Thus  we  see  that  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  differs  much  from 
the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  vernacular  papyri.  Indeed,  the  Greek 
of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  upon  an  average  better  than  the  common  dialect 
Greek,  which  we  find  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  papyri. 

Sec.  84.    The  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  Compared  with  That 
of  Other  Books  of  the  New  Testament 

See  p.  23  for  the  facts.  As  compared  with  the  Greek  of  Paul  in  three 
of  his  great  epistles  (Galatians,  I  Corinthians,  Romans),  we  notice  that 
Paul  averages  ca.  9  participles  per  page,  73^  per  cent,  ascriptive;  25!  per 
cent,  adverbial;  less  than  1  per  cent,  complementary.  Thus  we  see  that 
Paul's  Greek  is  much  more  like  the  vernacular  koivt}  of  the  Septuagint  and 
the  papyri  than  that  of  the  Book  of  Acts  or  of  the  literary  koivt;.  But, 
observe,  Paul's  lack  of  narrative  helps  to  account  for  this  difference. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  averages  14  per  page,  57  per  cent,  ascriptive; 
41  per  cent,  adverbial;  2  per  cent,  complementary.  In  frequency  of  par- 
ticiples the  Greek  of  Hebrews  is  nearer  to  the  classical  Greek  than  to  the 
literary  or  vernacular  koivt;;  it  is  also  nearer  to  the  classical  Greek  than  it 
is  to  that  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  When  we  consider  the  nature  of  the  parti- 
ciple, we  observe  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  a  much  smaller 
percentage  of  ascriptives  and  a  much  larger  proportion  of  adverbials  than 
the  vernacular  koivt;,  and  yet  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  in  Hebrews  is 
much  larger  than  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  while  that  of  the  adverbials  is  much 
smaller  (the  proportion  of  ascriptives  being  57  to  28^,  nearly  double;  that 
of  adverbials,  41  to  68,  over  a  third  less).  Therefore,  we  conclude,  there 
is  a  wide  difference  between  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  and  that  of 
Hebrews,  while  there  is  not  so  great  a  difference  between  classical  Greek 
and  that  of  Hebrews.     Likewise,  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  nearer 


48  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS 

to  that  of  the  literary  kolvtj  than  it  is  to  the  Greek  of  Hebrews  (cf.  figures 
on  pp.  10  and  23). 

The  Johannine  writings  show  a  Greek  more  in  accord  with  that  of  the 
vernacular  Koivrj  than  with  that  of  the  literary  Kowrj  (the  First  Epistle  more 
so  than  the  gospel,  the  epistle  not  containing  a  single  adverbial  participle 
but  94 1  per  cent,  ascriptive).  As  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  their  frequency 
of  participles  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  of  classical  Greek,  much  less  than 
that  of  the  literary  koivij,  while  much  greater  than  that  of  the  vernacular. 
Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  Greek  of  Mark,  as  seen  from  its  participial 
side,  is  nearer  to  that  of  the  literary  Koivrj  than  Matthew  is.  (But  the  dis- 
courses in  Matthew  help  to  account  for  this.)  Stranger  still,  the  Greek  of 
Mark  is  more  like  that  of  the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  literary  kolvtj  than  it  is 
like  the  vernacular  (see  pp.  10  and  23). 

The  Greek  of  First  Peter  is  more  akin  to  that  of  the  vernacular  than  it 
is  to  the  literary  kolviq  (except  that  the  participle  is  much  more  frequent  in 
First  Peter  than  in  the  vernacular,  but  not  so  frequent  as  in  the  literary 

KOLVYj) . 

Sec.  85.     General  Conclusions 

First,  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  not  so  near  to  the  classical  usage 
as  is  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews,  but  it  is  more  like  that  of  the  literary  kolvtj 
than  that  of  Hebrews  is. 

Secondly,  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  less  like  that  of  the  vernacu- 
lar KOivr)  than  that  of  Paul. 

Thirdly,  the  Greek  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  still  more  superior,  from  the 
literary  point  of  view,  to  that  of  the  Johannine  writings,  but  not  so  much 
superior  in  literary  merit  to  the  Greek  of  Matthew  and  Mark  (we  compare 
the  Greek  of  the  Third  Gospel  in  a  subsequent  chapter). 

Of  course,  all  these  conclusions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Greek  of  the 
Book  of  Acts  as  compared  with  that  of  other  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  that  of  the  classical,  literary,  or  vernacular  koivi'],  are  based  exclusively 
on  the  participial  usage.  Other  features  of  style  might  modify  these  con- 
clusions. We  shall  see  in  the  next  chapters  that  the  nature  of  the  Greek 
in  the  Book  of  Acts  varies  in  different  portions  of  the  book. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS  SEEN  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF 
THE  PARTICIPLE 

Sec.  86.     Opening  Statement 

The  traditional  school  has  ever  contended  for  the  unity  of  the  book. 
Not  even  the  Tubingen  school  gave  any  serious  attention  to  the  discussion 
of  the  unity  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  With  them  the  Tendenz  (tendency)  was  the 
main  thing  in  the  book.  It  was  not  till  Spitta  published  in  1891  his  Die 
A  postelgeschichte,  Hire  Quellen,  etc.,  on  the  sources  of  the  Book  of  Acts 
that  the  question  of  unity  was  seriously  discussed.  Spitta  claims  that  the 
book  is  the  work  of  a  redactor  based  on  two  parallel  sources,  A  and  B, 
each  beginning  with  the  ascension  of  Jesus  and  both  continuing  throughout 
the  Book  of  Acts.  J.  Weiss,  in  the  main,  accepts  Spitta's  view  as  to  the 
lack  of  unity  in  the  book. 

Carl  Clemen  more  recently  has  regarded  the  Book  of  Acts  as  the  pro- 
duction of  two  redactors,  Rj  friendly,  Ra  hostile,  to  the  Jews,  the  former 
using  as  a  source  HPe  (History  of  Peter),  the  latter  using  as  a  source 
HPa  (History  of  Paul). 

Julicher  denies  that  there  are  three  authors  to  the  book,  a  Judaist,  an 
Anti-Judaist,  and  a  Neutral  (as  claimed  by  some).  He  thinks  that  the 
book  comes  from  one  pen  (but  not  Luke's). 

Still  more  recently  Harnack  (Lukas  der  Arzt,  etc.,  especially  pp.  96-99, 
122-37)  argues,  from  lexical  and  stylistic  facts,  for  the  unity  of  the  book, 
claiming  that,  not  only  chaps.  1-12  and  13-28  come  from  the  same  hand,  but 
also  that  the  author  of  the  whole  book  is  none  other  than  the  author  of  the 
"We"  passages.  What  light  does  the  participial  usage  in  the  Book  of 
Acts  throw  on  this  question  ? 

Sec.  87.  The  Participial  Usage  in  the  Two  Main  Portions 
The  participles  in  Pe  (chaps.  1-12)  average  15^;  in  Pa  (chaps.  13-28) 
they  average  19.  Pe  has  34^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  Pa  has  ca.  24  per  cent, 
ascriptive.  Pe  has  57J  per  cent,  adverbial,  Pa  has  73^  per  cent,  adverbial. 
Pe  has  7!  per  cent,  complementary,  while  Pa  has  only  2\  per  cent,  com- 
plementary. So  we  see  that  the  author  of  Pe  has  nearly  25  per  cent, 
higher  average  than  Pa,  and  used  nearly  one-third  more  ascriptive  parti- 
ciples than  the  author  of  Pa. 

Furthermore  (pp.  28,  29)  we  saw  that  the  author  of  Pe  used  a  much 
larger  percentage  of  periphrastic,  or  predicative,  ascriptives  than  did  the 

49 


50  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

author  of  Pa — there  being  one  periphrastic  participle  to  every  26§  lines  in 
Pe,  but  only  one  to  ca.  44  lines  in  Pa. 

What  is  the  significance  of  these  facts  ?  Do  they  mean  that  the  same 
author  could  not  have  written  the  two  portions,  Pe  and  Pa,  with  so  different 
usage  in  each  as  to  ascriptive  participles  ?  Before  drawing  any  conclusion 
we  must  consider  if  it  is  not  possible  for  the  same  writer  in  the  same  pro- 
duction to  differ  as  much  as  this  in  his  use  of  ascriptive  participles.  Take 
as  an  example  Paul,  in  Rom.,  chaps.  9-1 1  and  12-14.  In  the  former  sec- 
tion occur  only  24  ascriptive  participles  to  168  lines,  one  to  ca.  7  lines;  in  the 
latter  section  occur  52  to  141  lines,  a  little  over  one  to  3  lines.  That  is,  Paul 
uses  over  twice  as  many  ascriptives  in  chaps.  12-14  as  ne  does  in  chaps. 
9-1 1 — a  much  greater  difference  than  we  find  in  Pe  and  Pa. 

Why  so  great  a  difference  in  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  in  Rom., 
chaps.  9-1 1  and  12-14  ?  Is  it  not  due  primarily  to  the  different  nature  of 
the  two  sections?  Chaps.  9-1 1  give  an  argument  closely  thought  out; 
chaps.  12-14,  an  exhortation  which  includes  a  great  deal  of  descriptive 
matter  (especially  chap.  12  on  the  various  classes).  In  argumentation  an 
author  naturally  uses  the  finite  verb  with  particles  instead  of  participles, 
while  in  exhortation  it  is  natural  to  use  more  ascriptives.  Moreover, 
in  chaps.  9-1 1  occurs  much  quoted  matter  in  which  are  found  very  few 
participles. 

Does  the  different  nature  of  Pe  and  Pa  warrant  the  difference  of  30 
per  cent,  in  the  proportion  of  ascriptives  in  each?  There  is  not  much 
difference  between  the  nature  of  Pe  and  Pa,  except  that  Pe  contains  more 
speeches  (some  long)  and  less  narrative,  also  breathes  a  more  Hebraistic 
atmosphere,  which  facts,  perhaps,  help  to  explain  the  larger  proportion 
of  ascriptives. 

What  can  be  said  of  the  adverbials  in  Pe  and  Pa  ?  In  Pa  there  are 
about  30  per  cent,  more  adverbials  than  in  Pe.  The  three  reasons  men- 
tioned above  help  to  explain  the  increased  percentage  of  adverbials  in  Pa. 
The  purer  the  narrative  and  the  less  Hebraistic  the  writing  (other  things 
being  equal)  the  more  adverbials  will  be  used. 

The  use  of  the  complementary  participle  is  so  different  in  Pe  and  Pa 
as  to  cast  some  doubt  upon  the  unity  of  the  book,  there  being  about  three 
times  as  many  in  Pe  as  in  Pa.  Nor  can  we  claim  that  the  Hebraistic  tone 
of  Pe  helps  to  explain  the  difference,  since  the  complementary  participle  is 
seldom  used  in  the  Septuagint  of  Exodus,  Deuteronomy,  and  Judges  (if 
per  cent.).  Homer  and  the  author  of  Pe  use  about  the  same  percentage 
of  complementary  participles,  while  Polybius  and  the  author  of  Pa  use  the 
same  number.     Upon  the  whole  we  may  say,  the  participial  usage  is  not 


UNITY    OF   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS    IN    LIGHT   OF   PARTICIPLE  5 1 

strongly  for  the  unity  of  the  two  main  portions  of  the  book,  though  the 
different  tone  and  different  nature  of  the  two  portions,  not  different  author- 
ship, may  explain  the  different  participial  usage. 

Sec.   88.     The  Participial  Usage  in  the  Subdivisions  of  Chaps.  1-12 

These  chapters  easily  fall  into  the  following  sections:  1 : 1-14;  1 :  15-26; 
chap.  2;  chaps.  3-5;  6:1-7;  6:8—7:60;  chap.  8;  9:1-31;  9:32 — 11:18; 
11:19-26;    11:27 — 12:25. 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the  participles  in  Pe  average  15&,  34^  per 
cent,  ascriptive,  57$  per  cent,  adverbial,  7$  per  cent,  complementary. 
Now  if  one  author  composed  the  whole  of  Pe,  we  may  expect  the  sections  to 
agree  fairly  well,  in  participial  usage,  with  one  another  and  with  the  general 
average  of  Pe.  They  need  not  agree  exactly,  for  different  participial  usage 
may  be  due  to  different  sources,  different  tone  and  nature  of  the  section, 
not  to  different  authorship. 

1 : 1-14  (ascension  of  Jesus  and  the  stay  of  the  disciples  in  the  upper 
room)  has  19  participles,  an  average  of  13^  per  page,  ca.  36  per  cent,  ascrip- 
tive, ca.  58  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  5  per  cent,  complementary.  By  com- 
parison we  notice  that  the  participial  usage  of  this  section  closely  resembles 
that  of  Pe  as  a  whole. 

1:15-26  (election  of  Matthias)  contains  11  participles,  an  average  of 
12  +  per  page,  over  63  per  cent,  ascriptive,  37  —  per  cent,  adverbial.  This 
participial  usage  is  radically  different  from  that  of  Pe,  and  would  suggest 
a  different  hand,  were  it  not  that  a  large  part  of  this  section  is  an  address. 
Hence,  this  section  can  furnish  proof  neither  for  nor  against  the  unity  of  Pe. 
The  author  may  be  influenced  by  a  Hebraistic  source,  since  the  ascriptive 
participle  prevails  in  the  section. 

Chap.  2  (Pentecost  and  its  immediate  results)  has  37  participles,  an 
average  of  10J  per  page,  the  ascriptive  and  adverbial  each  47 J  per  cent., 
ca.  5J  per  cent,  complementary.  Three  things  must  be  considered  in 
estimating  the  participial  usage  of  this  section:  its  large  amount  of  quoted 
matter,  its  general  Hebraistic  tone  (dealing  with  intensely  Jewish  matters), 
and  the  fact  that  it  is  not  all  narrative.  Hence,  we  find  the  ascriptive 
participles  above  the  average  for  Pe,  but  the  adverbial  and  complemen- 
tary participles  below  its  average.  This  difference  does  not  necessarily 
indicate  a  different  author,  since  the  nature  of  the  section  largely  explains 
the  participial  usage  on  the  basis  of  unity  of  authorship. 

Chaps.  3-5  (early  history  of  the  Jerusalem  church)  contain  112  parti- 
ciples, an  average  of  ca.  14^,  ca.  35  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  58  per  cent. 
adverbial,  ca.  7  per  cent,  complementary.  These  figures  show  a  remark- 
ably similar  style  in  this  section  to  that  of  Pe. 


52  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

6:1-7  (internal  trouble  leading  to  the  election  of  the  Seven)  has  only 
five  participles,  an  average  of  less  than  10  per  page,  20  per  cent,  ascriptive 
and  80  per  cent,  adverbial.  That  is,  this  section  has  very  little  Hebraistic 
tone,  but  seems  to  be  a  free  composition  unhampered  by  the  style  of  a 
written  source.  The  writer  of  this  section  writes  like  a  koivyj  writer  unfet- 
tered by  Judaistic  influences.  Of  course  any  writer  might  write  this  num- 
ber of  lines  without  using  a  complementary  participle.  The  participial 
usage  of  this  section  agrees  more  closely  with  that  of  Pa  than  that  of  Pe. 

6 : 8 — 7 :  60  (the  Stephen  section)  contains  56  participles,  an  average  of 
ca.  10  per  page,  34  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  52  J  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  13$ 
per  cent,  complementary,  the  number  of  ascriptives  being  about  the  same 
as  that  of  Pe,  the  number  of  adverbials  a  little  less,  and  the  number  of 
complementary  participles  being  nearly  double.  The  number  of  ad- 
verbials is,  doubtless,  cut  down  by  the  large  percentage  of  quoted  matter 
in  Stephen's  address.  The  large  number  of  complementary  participles  is 
difficult  to  explain.  If,  in  this  section,  the  usage  of  its  ascriptive  and  ad- 
verbial participles  did  not  so  closely  harmonize  with  that  of  Pe,  we 
might  conclude  that  the  excessive  use  of  complementary  participles  sug- 
gested another  hand. 

Chap.  8  (the  Philip  section)  contains  45  participles,  an  average  of  15^, 
32^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  63  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  4  per  cent,  comple- 
mentary. These  figures  are  fairly  close  to  those  of  Pe,  the  difference  being 
more  adverbial  and  less  complementary  participles.  This  Philip  section 
has  only  one  quotation,  and  in  its  original  portion  fairly  represents  the 
author  of  Pe  in  his  participial  usage. 

9:1-31  (Saul's  conversion  and  early  Christian  activity)  contains  37 
participles  (38  if  dmo-ras  in  v.  11  be  included),  an  average  of  ca.  i6f, 
nearly  38  per  cent,  ascriptive,  a  little  over  54  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  8  per 
cent,  complementary.  This  section  has  a  participial  usage  similar  to 
that  of  Pe,  except  the  slightly  increased  average  and  a  greater  percentage 
of  ascriptive  and  complementary  participles.  The  increase  of  the  latter 
is  due  to  the  vision  described. 

9:32 — 11:18  (Peter's  missionary  work)  contains  103  participles,  an 
average  of  19J  per  page,  32^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  54^  per  cent,  adverbial, 
ca.  \2\  per  cent,  complementary.  Two  things  are  remarkable  in  this 
section,  the  high  average  and  the  large  number  of  complementary  parti- 
ciples. The  ascriptive  and  adverbial  participles  are  just  a  little  below  the 
average  for  Pe. 

Is  there  any  explanation  (besides  different  authorship,  or  editorial 
work)  for  this  excessive  average — ca.  25  per  cent,  greater  than  that  of  Pe  ? 


UNITY    OF    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS    IN    LIGHT    OF   PARTICIPLE 


53 


The  preponderating  narrative  element  helps  to  account  for  the  large 
average;  the  visions  of  Peter  and  Cornelius  (the  former  twice  told)  increase 
the  number  of  complementary  participles;  also  written  sources  might  have 
led  the  same  author  to  use  more  participles  than  was  his  usual  habit.  Yet, 
if  there  were  sufficiently  weighty  arguments  from  other  directions  pointing 
to  a  different  author  for  this  section,  the  participial  usage  might  lend  its 
evidence  for  different  authorship. 

11:19-26  (the  gospel  reaches  Antioch)  has  10  participles,  an  average 
of  i6§  per  page,  40  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  60  per  cent,  adverbial.  The 
section  is  not  radically  different  from  Pe  in  participial  usage,  except  it  has 
no  complementary  participle.  Yet,  the  section  is  too  short  for  us  to  base 
conclusions  on  it  for  or  against  the  unity  of  Pe. 

11:27 — 12:25  (the  Jerusalem  church  and  Herod  Agrippa  I)  contains 
43  participles,  an  average  of  ic.£  per  page,  ca.  28  per  cent,  ascriptive,  69^ 
per  cent,  adverbial,  less  than  2\  per  cent,  complementary.  These  figures 
show  three  irregularities:  excessive  average,  a  small  number  of  ascriptives 
with  a  large  number  of  adverbials,  and  a  very  small  number  of  comple- 
mentary participles.  How  explain  this  variant  usage?  Either  by  the 
preponderating  narrative  of  the  section  and  the  source  as  containing  a  large 
number  of  participles,  or  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  different  author.  Since 
the  first  condition  is  present  and  the  second  condition  may  be  present,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  a  different  author  to  account  for  the  variant 
usage  of  participles  in  this  section. 

Sec.  89.    Table  Illustrating  the  Subsections  of  Pe 


Section 

i:i-I4 

1:15-26 

Chap.  2 

Chaps.  3-5 

6:i-7 

6:8—7:60 

Chap.  8 

9:1-31 

9:32—11:18 

11:19-26 

11: 27 — 12:25. . . 


Average  per 
Page  of  30  Lines 


Ascriptive 
Per  cent. 


Adverbial 
Per  cent. 


Complementary 
Per  cent. 


I3J 

12  + 

ioi 

I4§ 

10  — 

10 

15* 

16* 

19* 

16J 

19J 


36 
63 
47* 

35 
20 

34 

zA 
38- 

32§ 

40 


58 

37 

47* 

58 

80 

52* 

63 

54  + 

54£ 

60 

69i 


5* 

7 

n\ 

4  + 
8 

12* 


CONCLUSIONS    FROM   THE   TABLE 

First,  the  general  average  varies  ca.  100  per  cent. — from  less  than  10 
to  19^  per  page. 

Secondly,  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  varies  over  100  per  cent. — from 
28  per  cent,  to  63. 


54  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

Thirdly,  the  percentage  of  adverbials  varies  less  than  ioo  per  cent. — 
from  37  to  6oi  per  cent. 

Fourthly,  the  percentage  of  complementary  participles  varies  from 
zero  to  1 3 \. 

Fifthly,  chap.  8  seems  to  be  a  line  of  cleavage  between  the  earlier  and 
later  parts  of  Pe.  The  average  is  much  smaller  prior  to  chap.  8  and  much 
larger  from  chap.  8  on.  The  ascriptives  are  more  numerous  and  the 
adverbials  less  numerous  prior  to  chap.  8  (except  in  sees.  6 : 1-7  and  1 1 :  27 — 
12:25).  6:1-7  has  the  smallest  percentage  of  ascriptives  and  the  largest 
proportion  of  adverbials,  while  11:27 — 12:25  has  the  next  smallest  per- 
centage of  ascriptives  and  the  next  largest  proportion  of  adverbials.  The 
early  chapters  contain  rather  more  complementary  participles,  but  chap. 
8  following,  fewer.  Yet,  there  are  two  sections  in  chaps.  1-7  (both  short) 
containing  no  complementary  participles  at  all,  while  one  very  short  section 
in  chaps.  8-12  contains  none. 

Sixthly,  such  variety  of  participial  usage  would  suggest  a  plurality  of 
authors  for  Pe,  were  it  not  probable  that  variety  in  the  literary  character  of 
the  different  sections  and  variety  of  usage  in  the  possible  written  sources 
(for  portions,  at  least)  largely  account  for  the  variant  participial  usage  in 
the  different  sections. 

Sec.  90.    The  Participial  Usage  in  the  Subdivisions  of  Pa 

These  chapters  naturally  fall  into  the  following  sections:  chaps.  13  and 
14;  15:1-35;  15:36 — 18:22;  18:23 — 19:20;  19:21 — 21:14;  21:15 — 
24:27;  chaps.  25  and  26;  27:1 — 28:16;  28:17-31. 

Chaps.  13  and  14  (Paul's  first  missionary  journey)  contain  105  parti- 
ciples, an  average  of  18^  per  page,  a  little  over  30  per  cent,  ascriptive, 
nearly  68  per  cent,  adverbial,  not  quite  2  per  cent,  complementary.  These 
figures  are  near  to  those  of  Pa,1  there  being  a  few  more  ascriptives  (prob- 
ably due  to  the  address  in  chap.  13  which  contains  two  or  three  quotations 
from  the  Septuagint  and  which  is  somewhat  Hebraistic  in  tone)  and  a  few 
less  adverbials. 

15:1-35  (the  Jerusalem  conference)  contains  37  participles,  an  average 
of  14I  per  page,  ca.  27  per  cent,  ascriptive,  70!  per  cent,  adverbial,  and 
ca.  2\  per  cent,  complementary.  Two  things  are  notable  in  these  figures: 
an  average  lower  than  that  of  the  preceding  section  and  that  of  Pa,  and  the 
similarity  of  proportion  between  ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  complementary 
participles  as  compared  with  the  ratio  of  Pa.     Hence,  this  section  probably 

1  Pa  has  an  average  of  19  per  page,  ca.  24  per  cent,  ascriptive,  73$  per  cent, 
adverbial,  2$  per  cent,  complementary. 


UNITY   OF    THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS    IN    LIGHT    OF   PARTICIPLE  55 

comes  from  the  same  author,  while  his  Jerusalem  source  may  have  helped 
to  determine  the  lower  average  of  this  section. 

15:36 — 18:22  (Paul's  second  missionary  journey)  has  144  participles, 
an  average  of  i8f  per  page,  20^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  77 J  per  cent,  adverbial, 
and  2  +  per  cent,  complementary.  That  is,  the  ascriptive  and  comple- 
mentary participles  are  used  less  frequently,  but  adverbials  more  copiously, 
which  is,  doubtless,  due  to  the  exclusively  narrative  nature  of  this  section 
and  its  vivid  description. 

This  section  contains  one  of  the  "We"  passages,  16:10-17,  which 
averages  20  per  page,  40  per  cent,  ascriptive,  60  per  cent,  adverbial.  These 
figures  might  suggest  that  a  different  hand  furnished  the  "We"  passage, 
yet  it  is  not  impossible  for  the  same  hand  to  have  varied,  in  participial 
usage,  this  much  in  so  short  a  section  (21  lines). 

18:23 — 19:20  (early  part  of  Paul's  third  missionary  journey)  has  40 
participles,  an  average  of  20^  per  page,  35  per  cent,  ascriptive,  65  per  cent, 
adverbial.  This  section  is  very  similar  to  the  first  "We"  passage.  There 
is  a  different  ratio  of  ascriptives  and  adverbials  as  compared  with  that  of 
Pa,  yet  not  a  greater  difference  than  we  find  in  the  work  of  the  same  author. 

19:21 — 21:14  (later  part  of  Paul's  third  missionary  journey)  has  113 
participles,  25!  per  cent,  ascriptive,  72^  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  if  per 
cent,  complementary.  These  figures  are  so  near  to  those  of  Pa  as  to 
cast  no  doubt  upon  the  unity  of  authorship.  This  section  includes  two 
"We"  passages  (lacking  four  verses  of  the  second),  but  also  two  ad- 
dresses, that  of  the  Ephesian  town  clerk  and  that  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesian 
elders.  The  narrative  of  the  "We"  passages  and  the  argumentation  of 
the  addresses  counteract  each  other  and  so  preserve  the  uniformity  of  the 
whole  section. 

21:15 — 24:27  (Paul's  arrest  in  Jerusalem  and  first  trial  in  Caesarea) 
has  180  participles,  an  average  of  20J  per  page,  27J  per  cent,  ascriptive, 
67I  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  5  per  cent,  complementary.  These  figures 
are  too  near  to  those  of  Pa  to  suggest  plurality  of  authors. 

Chaps.  25  and  26  (Paul's  subsequent  trials  in  Caesarea)  contain  70 
participles,  an  average  of  15-jj-  per  page,  ca.  23  per  cent,  ascriptive,  74  per 
cent,  adverbial,  and  ca.  3  per  cent,  complementary.  Excepting  the  much 
smaller  average,  which  is,  doubtless,  due  to  the  addresses,  the  participial 
usage  of  this  section  is  strikingly  similar  to  that  of  Pa. 

27:1 — 28:16  (voyage  to  Rome,  including  the  shipwreck)  has  102 
participles,  an  average  of  24 T*0-  per  page,  i6f  per  cent,  ascriptive,  8of  per 
cent,  adverbial,  and  2  }|  per  cent,  complementary.  This,  the  longest  "We  " 
passage,  is  highly  descriptive,  being  nearly  all  narrative;    hence  the  small 


56 


THE    PARTICIPLE   IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS 


number  of  ascriptives  and  the  large  number  of  adverbials.  Bearing  this 
in  mind,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  same  hand  that  wrote  Pa  also  wrote 
this  section.  At  any  rate,  there  is  not  so  great  a  difference  in  participial 
usage  here  as  we  found  in  different  sections  of  Pe  and  in  different  portions 
of  Romans. 

28:17-31  (Paul  in  Rome)  contains  18  participles,  an  average  of  13^ 
per  page,  i6§  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  83 J  per  cent,  adverbial.  The  ratio 
between  the  ascriptive  and  the  adverbial  participles  is  almost  the  same  as 
that  in  the  last  "We"  passage.  The  low  average  for  this  section  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  14  lines  of  it  constitute  an  address  and  10  lines  of  the  address 
are  quoted  from  the  Septuagint.  Yet,  the  large  number  of  adverbials 
seems  to  indicate  the  free  composition  of  the  author. 

Sec.  91.    Table  Illustrating  the  Subdivisions  of  Pa 


Section 

Average  per 
Page  of  30  Lines 

Ascriptive 
Per  cent . 

Adverbial 
Per  cent. 

Complementary 
Per  cent. 

Chaps.  13  and  14 

I8J 
14* 
i8f 

20J 
20 

2o£ 

iSl 

24A 
13* 

30  + 

27 

20J 

25§ 
27i 

23 , 

i6§ 

i6| 

68- 

7oi 

77i 

65 

72r7s 

67i 

74 

8o| 

83* 

2  — 
2  f 

18:23 — 19:20 

5 

ca.  3 
ca.  3 

27:1 — 28:16   

SOME   OBSERVATIONS    ON   THESE   FIGURES 

First,  the  average  is  fairly  regular  throughout  Pa,  except  in  section 
15 : 1-35,  where  the  average  is  small  because  of  the  addresses,  the  quotation 
and  Septuagint  tone,  and  in  chaps.  25  and  26  in  which  occur  Pauline 
addresses  and  a  Septuagint  tone,  which  facts  help  to  explain  an  average 
below  that  of  Pa. 

Secondly,  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  varies  over  100  per  cent,  in  the 
different  sections  (as  in  Pe),  from  i6f  to  35  per  cent. 

Thirdly,  the  percentage  of  adverbials  varies  about  25  per  cent.,  from 
65  to  83^  per  cent. 

Fourthly,  the  percentage  of  complementary  participles  varies  from  zero 
to  5  per  cent. 

Fifthly,  the  variations  in  Pa  are  much  less  than  in  Pe,  the  percentage 
of  variation  being  equal  nowhere  except  in  ascriptives. 

Sixthly,  after  taking  account  of  the  variations  due  to  literary  form  and 
to  the  sources  in  different  sections,  we  may  say  that  there  is  a  striking 
uniformity  in  participial  usage  throughout  Pa. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS  SEEN  IN  THE  LIGHT   OF 
PARTICIPIAL  USAGE 

Sec.  92.    Introductory  Statement 

If  the  unity  of  authorship  is  accepted,  the  extreme  variations  in  parti- 
cipial usage  (as  in  other  phases  of  style)  can  be  explained  satisfactorily 
only  on  the  hypothesis  of  written  sources  whose  literary  peculiarities  influ- 
enced the  author. 

We  have  established,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  in  Part  I  (see  various 
summary  tables)  that  the  participial  usage  of  the  Septuagint  (which  is  to 
some  extent  Hebraistic)  is  quite  different  from  the  style  of  the  classical  or 
kolvtj  Greek.  There  is  so  great  a  difference  (especially  in  the  number  of 
participles  and  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials)  that  one  is 
fairly  safe  in  concluding,  from  the  participial  usage,  the  Hellenic  or  Hebra- 
istic character  of  a  certain  piece  of  Greek.  That  is,  if  the  number  is  very 
small  and  the  ascriptives  overwhelmingly  predominate  over  the  adverbials, 
it  is  probable  that  the  piece  of  Greek  is  not  pure  literary  Koivrj,  but  Hebra- 
istic or  vernacular  Greek  (according  to  facts  on  p.  10).  And  although  it 
is  sometimes  difficult  to  discriminate  between  the  Hebraistic  and  vernacular 
Greek  style,  yet  it  is  easy  to  discriminate  between  the  style  of  the  literary 
kolvt]  and  the  Hebraistic  Greek.  As  seen  above  the  style  of  Pa  is  rather 
Hellenic,  while  that  of  Pe  is  more  Hebraistic  in  tone. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  accept  a  plurality  of  authors  (or  editors,  or 
redactors,  who  in  any  considerable  degree  "worked  over"  the  material) 
it  is  difficult  to  conclude  from  variations  in  participial  usage  in  different 
sections  that  different  sources  must  lie  at  the  basis  of  these  different  sections. 

The  facts  set  forth  in  the  last  chapter  seem  to  point  to  the  unity  of  the 
book.  Then  let  us  examine  the  different  portions  on  the  assumption  that 
the  book  is  practically  a  literary  unit,  and  see  what  light  the  participial 
usage  throws  on  possible  written  sources. 

Sec.  93.  Spitta's  Hypothesis  Tested  by  Participial  Usage 
Spitta  accepts  (see  p.  49  above)  two  sources  running  parallel  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  book,  that  now  a  paragraph  (or  longer  section, 
or  even  verse,  or  line)  is  taken  from  A  (the  work  of  Luke  and  constituting 
about  two-thirds  of  the  book)  and  now  a  paragraph  (or  longer  or  shorter 
section)  is  taken  from  B  (a  Jewish-Christian  source).  The  redactor  also 
adds  a  few  lines  occasionally. 

57 


58  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

Let  us  examine  some  sections  from  6 :  i  ff.,  and  see  if  the  participial  usage 
justifies  Spitta's  hypothesis. 

6: 1-6,  9-i2a  he  regards  as  from  A;  6:7,  8,  12&-15  from  B.  6:1-6 
contains  5  participles,  20  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  80  per  cent,  adverbial. 
6:7,  8  has  no  participles  at  all.  6:9-120  contains  4  participles,  75  per 
cent,  ascriptive  and  25  per  cent,  complementary  (though  o-w^towvtcs 
might  be  considered  adverbial  instead  of  ascriptive).     6:12^-15  contains 

6  participles,  33%  per  cent,  each  ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  complementary. 

Now  the  first  section,  vss.  1-6,  agrees  in  participial  usage  fairly  well  with 
the  "We"  source,  as  Spitta  has  supposed.     It  must  be  conceded  that  vss. 

7  and  8,  since  they  contain  no  participial  clause  but  do  contain  koL  .  .  .  .  tc, 
and  8e  five  times  for  uniting  the  clauses  of  these  two  verses,  are  Hebraistic 
in  tone.  But  the  objector  might  say,  There  is  not  a  participle  in  vss.  4  and 
5  in  the  supposed  "We"  section,  vss.  1-6,  and  surely  the  participle  might 
have  been  easily  used  at  the  beginning  of  vs.  5.  So  the  participial  usage 
of  6:1-6,  7,  8,  while  not  condemning  Spitta's  hypothesis,  does  not  neces- 
sarily confirm  it. 

In  6:9-120  (A)  the  participial  usage  is  decidedly  against  Spitta's 
hypothesis,  even  if  aw^Tovvra  be  construed  as  adverbial  (if  it  is  regarded 
as  ascriptive  the  style  is  overwhelmingly  against  his  hypothesis).  The 
participial  usage  of  6:12^-15  does  not  speak  clearly  for  or  against  his 
hypothesis. 

7:2-54,  57,  580  are  from  A,  while  7:55,  56,  586,  59-61  are  from  B. 
In  the  A-section  occur  38  participles,  31  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  64  per  cent, 
adverbial,  and  ca.  5  per  cent,  complementary.  In  the  B-section  occur  10 
participles,  only  10  per  cent,  ascriptive,  60  per  cent,  adverbial  and  30  per 
cent,  complementary.  According  to  Spitta  this  section  is  more  Hebraistic 
than  "Lukan,"  but  the  participial  usage  shows  just  the  opposite.  Hence 
the  participial  usage  shows  Spitta's  division  of  the  last  verses  of  chap. 
7  to  be  arbitrary. 

Spitta  puts  all  of  chap.  8  in  B,  except  lb,  and  2  (A),  and  vss.  4  and  400 
which  are  by  the  redactor.  In  16  and  2  there  is  not  a  participle.  In  ia, 
3,  5-400  are  found  42  participles,  38  per  cent,  ascriptive,  57 \  per  cent, 
adverbial,  and  less  than  5  per  cent,  complementary.  This  can  scarcely 
be  classed  as  Hebraistic,  Moreover,  in  the  section  which  Spitta  regards 
as  "Lukan"  (A)  there  is  not  a  single  participle.  This  is  strange.  The 
facts  of  participial  usage  in  chap.  8  are  clearly  against  Spitta. 

Chap.  9  he  regards  as  from  B,  except  vss.  4  and  5,  which  are  from  the 
redactor.  In  the  A-section  occur  59  participles,  $$%  pCr  cent,  ascriptive, 
62I  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  3$  per  cent,  complementary.     This  is  surely 


SOURCES  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE        59 

more  "Lukan"  than  Hebraistic  in  participial  usage.  Moreover,  the 
average  for  this  chapter  (21  per  page)  is  decidedly  against  its  composition 
by  a  Jewish  writer  (unless  the  style  of  the  source  is  completely  ignored  by 
the  later  hand). 

Chap.  10  he  regards  as  from  B,  except  vss.  36-43  by  the  redactor.  The 
B-portion  contains  50  participles,  36  per  cent,  ascriptive,  50  per  cent, 
adverbial,  and  14  per  cent,  complementary.  In  vss.  36-43  occur  n  par- 
ticiples, 54J  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  45^  per  cent,  adverbial.  That  is,  the 
portion  ascribed  by  Spitta  to  the  redactor  is  more  Hebraistic  than  the  sec- 
tion which  he  says  comes  directly  from  the  Jewish  source. 

Chap.  11  is  from  B,  except  vss.  19-21  and  27-30  (from  A)  and  22, 
246-26  (from  the  redactor).  The  B-portion  contains  20  participles, 
30  per  cent,  ascriptive,  50  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  20  per  cent,  comple- 
mentary. The  A-section  contains  10  participles,  50  per  cent,  each  ascrip- 
tive and  adverbial.  The  figures  for  both  sections  are  against  Spitta's 
hypothesis,  for  the  section  which  should  be  more  Hebraistic  is  more 
"Lukan"  and  vice  versa. 

Chap.  12  is  from  B,  except  vs.  25  (A).  Vss.  1-24  contain  36  parti- 
ciples, 25  per  cent,  ascriptive,  72  per  cent,  adverbial,  less  than  3  per  cent, 
complementary,  while  vs.  25  has  three  participles,  333  per  cent,  ascriptive, 
the  rest  adverbial.  That  is,  the  B-portion,  according  to  Spitta,  is  more 
"Lukan"  than  the  "Lukan"  verse  itself  (25). 

According  to  Spitta,  the  most  of  chaps.  13-28  comes  from  A,  but  some 
short  sections  (very  few  longer  ones)  come  from  B.  Let  us  examine  the 
participial  tone  of  these  B-sections  in  chaps.  13-28. 

In  chaps.  13  and  14  Spitta  regards  13:6-12,  44-49,52;  14:3,  8-150, 
18-20  as  coming  from  B.  This  B-portion  contains  40  participles,  25  per 
cent,  ascriptive,  70  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  ca.  5  per  cent,  complementary. 
These  are  strange  figures  for  a  Jewish-written  source  (unless  radically 
changed  by  a  later  hand).  According  to  Sec.  90,  chaps.  13  and  14  have 
30  per  cent,  ascriptive,  68  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  ca.  2  per  cent,  comple- 
mentary. Hence,  it  appears  that  Spitta's  Jewish  source  in  these  chapters 
is  less  Jewish  and  more  Lukan  than  the  chapters  as  a  whole. 

Chap.  15  is  divided  into  vss.  35-41  (from  A)  and  vss.  1-4,  13-33  (from 
B),  the  rest  from  the  redactor.  The  A-section  has  9  participles,  one-third 
ascriptive  and  two-thirds  adverbial  (with  the  possibility  that  one  counted 
ascriptive  may  be  adverbial).  The  B-section  contains  28  participles,  32-$- 
per  cent,  ascriptive  and  67$  adverbial.  The  participial  usage  is  so  similar 
in  A  and  B  as  not  to  suggest  a  plurality  of  sources. 

In  chap.  16  he  regards  vss.  22-34,  366  as  from  B,  in  which  occur  18 


60  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

participles  (three-fourths  of  page),  88f  per  cent,  adverbial  and  n-^  com- 
plementary with  not  one  ascriptive.  These  figures,  showing  a  piece  of 
Greek  so  un-Hebraistic,  are  decidedly  against  Spitta. 

Only  two  other  long  sections  in  chaps.  13-28  are  regarded  by  Spitta 
as  from  B,  19:106-20,  24-40,  and  23:1-10.  The  former  section  contains 
43  participles,  39!  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  58  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  2^ 
per  cent,  complementary.  This  section  is  a  little  more  Hebraistic  in  parti- 
cipial usage  than  other  sections  ascribed  by  Spitta  to  B,  but  the  Hebraistic 
tone  is  too  slight  to  reflect  a  purely  Jewish  written  source,  since  so  large 
a  percentage  of  adverbial  participles  is  found  in  no  Jewish  writer  of  the 
New  Testament,  except  Mark  (whose  participial  usage  is  probably  due  to 
his  intimate  intercourse  with  non-Jewish  people  in  his  later  life  and  to  the 
marked  narrative  style  of  his  gospel) . 

In  23:1-10  are  found  14  participles,  42!  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  57^ 
per  cent,  adverbial,  and  hence  the  section  does  not  strongly  reflect  a  Jewish- 
written  source. 

Upon  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that  the  participial  usage  of  chaps.  6-12 
does  not  entirely  condemn  Spitta's  hypothesis,  nor  does  it  confirm  it.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  chaps.  13-28,  though  his  hypothesis  that  the  most  of 
these  chapters  comes  from  the  Lukan,  or  "We,"  source  is  strongly  sub- 
stantiated by  the  participial  usage. 

Since  J.  Weiss  holds  virtually  the  same  hypothesis  as  Spitta  (except 
he  thinks  that  chaps.  1-5  come  from  one  source  and  the  address  of  Stephen 
is  a  unit);  since  also  Jiingst  (1895)  simply  modified  Spitta's  hypothesis 
(differing  as  to  the  extent  of  the  sources  and  regarding  source  B  as  Ebio- 
nitic  and  identical  to  a  source  of  the  Third  Gospel),  we  do  not  consider 
their  hypotheses  in  detail.  But  the  participial  usage  seems  to  suggest  too 
much  literary  unity  in  Acts  (which  J.  Weiss  concedes)  to  admit  of  its  being 
pieced  together  by  a  redactor  from  such  dissimilar  (and  often  meager) 
fragments. 

Sec.  94.    Feine's  Hypothesis  in  the  Light  of  Participial  Usage 

In  1 891,  Feine  put  forth  the  hypothesis  that  most  of  1  :i — 11 :24  comes 
from  a  pre-canonical  document  of  the  Third  Gospel,  parts  of  chaps.  7-9 
and  n  coming  from  another  source  (the  basis  of  chaps.  13-28). 

He  regards  as  coming  from  this  latter  source  6:1-6,  participles  20  per 
cent,  ascriptive  and  80  per  cent,  adverbial;  6:12-14,  participles  25  per 
cent,  each  ascriptive  and  adverbial,  50  per  cent,  complementary;  7:2-21, 
participles  10  per  cent,  each  ascriptive  and  complementary,  80  per  cent, 
adverbial;  7:29-34,  participles,  all  adverbial,  but  small  average,  n  per 


SOURCES  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE       6 1 

page;  7:44-50,  50  per  cent,  each  ascriptive  and  adverbial;  7:57,  58,  one- 
third  ascriptive,  two-thirds  adverbial;  8:25-40  (about  which  Feine 
hesitates),  23^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  70^  per  cent,  adverbial,  6  per  cent, 
complementary;  9:1-30,  nearly  39  per  cent,  ascriptive,  53!  per  cent, 
adverbial,  ca.  8  per  cent,  complementary;  11 : 25-30,  40  per  cent,  ascrip- 
tive and  60  per  cent,  adverbial. 

These  sections  (except  9: 1-30)  it  must  be  conceded,  according  to  parti- 
cipial usage,  are  more  similar  in  style  to  chaps.  13-28  than  to  the  most 
of  chaps.  1-12,  excepting  the  smaller  average.  Hence,  while  the  parti- 
cipial usage  in  chaps.  1-12  is  not  directly  against  Feine's  hypothesis,  it  is 
surely  not  strongly  in  favor  of  it. 

Sec.  95.     Carl  Clemen's  Hypothesis  in  the  Light  of 
Participial  Usage 

In  1893  (Die  Chronologie),  again  in  1895  (SK),  Carl  Clemen  published 
what  is  perhaps  the  most  elaborate  hypothesis  as  to  the  sources  in  the 
Book  of  Acts.  He  regards  the  Book  of  Acts  as  the  literary  product  of  two 
redactors,  one  friendly  (Rj),  the  other  hostile,  to  the  Jewish-Christian 
point  of  view  (Ra),  based  on  two  sources,  HPe  (History  of  Peter)  and  HPa 
(History  of  Paul).  He  regards  the  two  sources  as  not  simply  chronicles 
in  their  respective  spheres  of  early  Christian  activity,  but  as  having  passed 
through  a  literary  history  of  their  own  before  being  used  by  the  two  redac- 
tors in  producing  the  Book  of  Acts.  Of  course,  he  regards  the  most  of 
chaps.  1 -1 2  as  from  HPe  and  the  most  of  chaps.  13-28  as  from  HPa. 
But  he  supposes  that  one  or  the  other  of  the  redactors  inserted  many  short 
or  long  passages  in  both  parts  of  the  book. 

We  have  seen  above  that  the  participial  usage  favors  and  even  demands 
the  general  division  of  the  book  into  two  portions.  But  how  does  it  bear  on 
Clemen's  hypothesis  of  a  redaction  of  these  by  two  hostile  hands  ? 

He  regards  as  the  work  of  Ra  in  chaps.  1-12,  4:36 — 5:11,  participles, 
37  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  63  per  cent,  adverbial,  average,  20;  8:14-25, 
average,  14,  20  per  cent,  ascriptive,  70  per  cent,  adverbial,  10  per  cent. 
complementary;  9:1-31,  average,  i6|-  (over  17  if  dvacn-as,  vs.  n,  be 
included),  nearly  38  per  cent,  ascriptive,  a  little  over  54  percent,  adverbial, 
ca.  8  per  cent,  complementary;  11:27-30,  average,  15,  50  per  cent,  each 
ascriptive  and  adverbial;  12:1-25,  average,  ca.  22,  28  per  cent,  ascriptive, 
69$  per  cent,  adverbial,  2%  per  cent,  complementary. 

These  sections  in  chaps.  1-12  do  have  a  much  larger  average  than  the 
rest  of  these  chapters,  which  shows  them  to  be  at  least  un-Jewish  in  tone, 
if  not  anti-Jewish  (as  Clemen  claims).     The  ratio  between  the  ascriptive, 


62  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN    THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

adverbial,  and  complementary  participles  indicates  an  un-Jewish  source 
or  composition,  or  both,  for  these  sections. 

In  chaps.  13-28  Clemen  regards  as  the  work  of  Ra,  13:44-50,  average, 
15,  50  percent,  each  ascriptive  and  adverbial;  15:5-12,  19,  23-33,  average, 
15I,  19  per  cent,  ascriptive,  76  per  cent,  adverbial,  ca.  5  per  cent,  comple- 
mentary; 18:6,  average,  ca.  30,  all  adverbial;  20:25-35,  38a,  average,  15, 
41  §  per  cent,  ascriptive,  50  per  cent,  adverbial,  83  per  cent,  complementary; 
28:25-28,  average,  8  (due  probably  to  a  long  quotation  with  only  one  par- 
ticiple), all  adverbial. 

These  sections  average  only  ca.  15  (except  18:6  which  is  too  short  to 
reckon  on),  which  is  about  the  average  of  the  Jewish  portion  of  the  Book  of 
Acts.  Also  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials  agrees  more 
nearly  with  that  of  chaps.  1-12  than  with  that  of  chaps.  13-28.  Therefore, 
the  participial  usage  in  these  sections  is  against  Clemen's  hypothesis  that  an 
anti-Jewish  redactor  added  them. 

Let  us  now  look  at  some  Rj  sections  (limiting  ourselves  to  those  in 
chaps.  13-28,  since  there  are  very  few  in  chaps.  1-12). 

[5:1-4,  participles  all  adverbial,  average  n£;  15:13-18,  average,  10 
(but  most  of  this  section  is  quoted),  75  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  25  per  cent, 
adverbial;  15:20-22,  average,  17 J,  60  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  40  per  cent, 
adverbial;  16:1-3,  average,  9,  50  per  cent,  each  ascriptive  and  adverbial; 
21 :  206-26,  average,  18,  36T4T  per  cent,  ascriptive,  63^  adverbial;  22:1-16, 
19-21,  average,  22,  55  per  cent,  ascriptive,  41  f  adverbial,  and  3!  com- 
plementary; 23:1-10,  average,  i6|,  39  per  cent,  ascriptive.  61  per  cent, 
adverbial;  28:16-24,  average,  15,  25  per  cent,  ascriptive,  75  per  cent 
adverbial. 

Excepting  15:1-4  and  28:16-24,  the  participial  usage  in  these  sections 
as  to  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials  is  like  that  of  chaps. 
1-12  rather  than  that  of  chaps.  13-28.  The  average  varies,  about  half 
resembling  that  of  the  first  portion,  the  other  half,  that  of  the  second  por- 
tion.    These  figures  then  only  slightly  confirm  Clemen's  hypothesis. 

To  conclude  as  to  Clemen's  hypothesis,  his  general  supposition  of  two 
basal  histories  (HPe  and  HPa)  fairly  harmonizes  with  the  participial 
usage  of  the  book,  but  his  supposition  of  an  anti-Jewish  writer  who  works 
over  many  passages  is  contrary  to  the  participial  usage  and  his  supposition 
of  a  Jewish  hand  in  certain  sections  is  only  partially  confirmed  by  the  parti- 
cipial usage.  Hence  we  ask,  as  to  the  last  sections  (Rj),  since  they  are 
intensely  Jewish  and  since  they  contain  two  of  the  Pauline  addresses  (which 
are  Jewish  in  participial  style),  could  not  the  Jewish  tone  in  participial 
usage,  as  well  as  in  other  stylistic  features  too,  be  more  naturally  accounted 


SOURCES  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE       63 

for  by  supposing  a  Jewish-Christian  source  which  influenced  the  style  of  the 
author  ? 

Sec.  96.    The  Source  Hypothesis  in  Harmony  with  the 
Participial  Usage 

Wendt  hesitates  to  state  with  precision  the  limits  of  the  various  sources 
in  the  Book  of  Acts.  He  thinks  that  the  "We"  source  is  the  only  distinctly 
written  source,  not  only  for  chaps.  13-28  (most),  but  that  it  is  the  basis  of 
many  sections  in  chaps.  1 -12  (11:19  f.;  8:1,4;  chaps.  6  and  7,  and  possi- 
bly some  passages  in  chaps.  1-5,  though  he  regards  the  most  of  chaps.  1-5 
based  on  well-defined  traditions).  The  participial  usage  does  not  confirm 
Wendt's  hypothesis  of  no  written  sources  except  the  "We"  document. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  style  should  be  so  different  in  the  early  chapters 
from  that  of  the  later  portion  of  the  book,  if  one  writer,  and  that  a  non- 
Jewish  writer  (as  Wendt  holds),  composed  the  whole  book,  unless  he  had 
before  him  Jewish-Christian  written  sources  for  these  early  chapters. 

On  the  other  hand,  Hilgenfeld  holds  to  three  written  sources:  A,  the 
Acts  of  Peter,  1:15 — 5:42;  10:1 — 11:18;  B,  the  Acts  of  the  Seven,  most 
of  chaps.  6-8;  C,  the  Acts  of  Paul,  the  most  of  chaps.  13-28  and  small 
portions  of  chaps.  7,  8,  9,  and  11. 

Let  us  look  at  the  facts  of  the  participial  usage  in  detail  in  the  various 
sections  of  the  book. 

1  :i-i4  (WH's  first  paragraph)  averages  i6£,  with  36I  per  cent,  ascrip- 
tive,  58  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  5J  per  cent,  complementary.  This  is  a 
mixture  of  Jewish  Greek  (similar  to  that  in  Luke  1  :$ — 2:52)  and  literary 
kolvtj  Greek  (like  that  of  the  late  chapters  of  Acts).  But  suppose  we  make 
the  paragraph  between  vss.  11  and  12,  we  find  that  1  :i-ii  has  an  average 
of  18  per  page,  20  per  cent,  ascriptive,  73^  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  6§  per 
cent,  complementary,  a  piece  of  Greek  closely  resembling  the  free  com- 
position of  the  late  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  This  is  the  logical  para- 
graph division,  since  vss.  1-11  describe  Jesus'  last  interview  with  the 
disciples  and  his  ascension,  while  vs.  1 2  begins  a  line  of  thought  connected 
with  the  return  to  and  stay  in  Jerusalem. 

1:12 — 5:16  constitutes  a  section  fairly  uniform  in  participial  usage, 
averaging  12^  per  page,  with  45 J  per  cent,  ascriptive,  51  \  per  cent,  adver- 
bial, and  3^  per  cent,  complementary.  These  figures  are  very  close  to  those 
of  Mark's  gospel  (only  Mark  is  a  little  less  Jewish  in  participial  usage). 
Hence,  we  must  conclude  that,  if  a  non-Jewish  writer  composed  this  section 
(1:12 — 5:16)  as  it  now  stands,  he  had  before  him  a  Jewish-Christian 
document  and  followed  it  closely. 


64  THE   PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

5 :  17—33  (story  of  Peter  and  John's  miraculous  deliverance)  has  an 
average  of  nearly  20  per  page,  24  per  cent,  ascriptive,  66§  per  cent,  adverbial, 
and  ca.  o£  per  cent,  complementary,  which  figures  betray  the  style  of  the 
non-Jewish  kolvyj  writer  of  the  last  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  This 
probably  suggests  that  this  story  was  not  put  in  writing  (being  so  remark- 
able it  was  easy  to  remember)  and  that  the  author  freely  composed  this. 

5:34-42  (most  of  it  Gamaliel's  address)  betrays  a  Hebraistic  style  in  its 
average  of  g\  participles  per  page,  while  the  absence  of  ascriptives  and 
7if  per  cent,  adverbials  show  the  free  composition  of  the  non- Jewish 
writer. 

10:1 — 11:18  (Cornelius  episode,  the  next  most  Jewish  piece  of  Greek 
in  chaps.  1-12)  averages  17^  with  37^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  48!  per  cent, 
adverbial,  and  13!  per  cent,  complementary.  This  section  is  much  less 
Jewish,  as  is  shown  by  the  ratio  between  the  ascriptives  and  adverbials, 
and  by  the  large  average.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  basis  of  this  Cor- 
nelius section  was  a  document  written  by  Mark,  the  reputed  interpreter 
of  Peter,  and  that  this  source  was  freely  worked  over  by  the  author  of  the 
book.  Or,  this  section,  judged  from  its  participial  usage,  may  not  have  a 
written  source  at  all,  but  may  have  been  freely  composed  by  the  author 
from  a  tradition  (and  if  Luke  be  the  author  he  may  have  heard  Mark  tell  it 
in  Rome,  both  being  there  with  Paul,  according  to  Col.  4: 10,  14). 

Chaps.  6-8  (Stephen  and  Philip  sections)  betray  a  uniformity  of  parti- 
cipial usage,  averaging  i2f  per  page  with  35  per  cent,  ascriptive,  ca.  56 
per  cent,  adverbial,  and  9  per  cent,  complementary.  By  comparison  with 
10:1 — 11  :i8,  we  see  that  these  chapters  are  less  Hebraistic  when  we  con- 
sider the  ratio  of  ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  complementary  participles,  but 
are  more  Hebraistic  when  we  consider  the  average.  Yet,  the  average  is 
doubtless  diminished  in  these  chapters  by  two  causes,  the  presence  of  so 
much  Septuagint  matter  and  a  long  address  in  chap.  7.  By  comparison 
with  1:12 — 5:16,  we  see  that  chaps.  6-8  are  less  Hebraistic  in  participial 
usage.  So  this  whole  section  seems  to  be  less  Jewish  than  the  Jewish- 
Christian  sections,  1:12 — 5:16,  34-42,  and  10:1 — 11:18.  Is  the  differ- 
ence in  style  great  enough  to  suggest  a  different  source,  that  is,  a  Hellen- 
istic-Christian source  as  distinguished  from  the  Jewish-Christian  source  ? 
Or,  is  the  difference  in  participial  usage  due  to  the  working-over  by  the 
author  and  to  the  different  literary  point  of  view  in  the  sections  ?  On  the 
other  hand,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  style  is  so  different  in  chaps.  6-8 
from  that  of  the  late  chapters  of  the  book  that  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that 
these  chapters  should  have  been  composed  without  written  sources  as  a 
basis. 


SOURCES  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE        65 

Chap.  12  averages  over  22  per  page  with  28  per  cent,  ascriptive,  6g§ 
per  cent,  adverbial,  and  2\  per  cent,  complementary.  The  source  must  be 
Jewish,  since  it  deals  with  the  Jerusalem  church,  but  it  could  not  well  be 
a  Jewish-Christian  written  source,  judged  from  the  participial  usage,  unless 
it  be  supposed  that  the  author  completely  changed  the  participial  usage  of  the 
source.  It  seems  best  to  regard  chap.  12  (like  5:17-33)  as  the  free 
composition  of  the  non-Jewish  author,  based  on  a  Jewish-Christian 
tradition. 

9:1-31  (conversion  and  early  Christian  activity  of  Saul)  has  an  average 
of  i6f ,  nearly  38  per  cent,  ascriptive,  over  54  per  cent,  adverbial,  and  ca. 
8  per  cent,  complementary.  This  section  is  not  to  be  divided  between  vss. 
19  and  20,  since  the  participial  usage  is  similar  throughout  the  section 
(except  all  the  complementary  participles  occur  in  vss.  1-19,  but  this  is  due 
to  the  vision  described).  This  section  is  not  so  strongly  Hellenic  as  the 
late  chapters  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  nor  is  it  Hebraistic.  Did  it  come  from 
a  Jewish  or  a  non-Jewish  source  ?  It  seems  unlikely,  judged  from  the 
participial  usage,  that  this  section  comes  from  the  "  We"  source,  since  the 
average  and  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials  differ  so  much  from 
those  in  the  "We"  source.  The  participial  usage  suggests  a  Jewish  source 
which  has  been  worked  over  by  a  non-Jewish  writer,  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  section  comes  from  a  Jewish-Christian  written  source.  The  most 
probable  solution,  suggested  by  the  participial  usage,  is  that  this  section 
is  based  on  a  well-defined  tradition,  first  told  by  Paul  himself  (this  helping 
to  account  for  the  Hebraistic  tone  in  its  participial  usage),  handed  down 
by  his  friends  in  its  Jewish  dress,  but  worked  over  by  the  non-Jewish  author 
who  gives  it  its  Hellenic  tone.  The  fact  that  there  are  in  this  account  of 
Saul's  conversion  details  differing  from  those  in  the  accounts  in  chaps.  22 
and  26,  and  the  lack  of  details  in  his  early  work  in  Damascus  and  Jerusalem 
(vss.  20-31  containing  a  bare  outline)  confirm  the  hypothesis  of  an  un- 
written source  for  9:1-31. 

9:32-43  (a  Petrine  missionary  tour)  has  an  average  of  25  per  page,  22 
per  cent,  ascriptive  and  78  per  cent,  adverbial.  These  figures  are  strongly 
against  a  Jewish-Christian  written  source.  It  is  likely  from  a  Jewish- 
Christian  tradition  and  freely  composed  by  the  non-Jewish  author. 

11:19-30  (the  gospel  in  Antioch)  averages  ca.  16  participles  per  page 
with  42 -f-  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  57 i  per  cent,  adverbial.  This  section 
did  not  then  likely  come  from  the  "We"  source.  Its  participial  usage  agrees 
more  nearly  with  that  of  the  Hellenistic-Christian  source  (chaps.  6-8),  and 
vs.  19,  which  speaks  of  "those  who  were  scattered  by  the  tribulation  that 
arose  over  Stephen,"  suggests  a  Hellenistic-Christian  source. 


66  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

In  chaps.  13-28  the  main  source  is  doubtless  the  "We"  document,  since 
it  is  so  vivid  and  vigorous  in  style.  Nor  is  the  "We"  document  to  be 
limited  to  the  four  passages  (16:1-10;  20:5-16;  21:1-18;  27:1 — 28:16) 
in  which  the  pronoun  "we"  or  "us"  occurs,  because  the  participial  usage 
within  and  just  without  the  "We"  passages  is  remarkably  similar  (see 
pp.  17  and  18).  Of  course,  where  addresses  occur  in  the  context  of  the 
"We"  passages  their  presence  diminishes  the  average  and  the  percentage 
of  adverbials. 

The  following  sections  in  chaps.  13-28  are  probably  not  from  the 
"We"  document: 

15 : 1—35  (Jerusalem  conference)  has  an  average  of  14 J,  but  the  adverbial 
percentage  of  70J  shows  that  it  was  thoroughly  worked  over  by  the  non- 
Jewish  author. 

16:1-5  (circumcision  of  Timothy  and  delivery  of  the  decrees)  averages 
only  i\  per  page  with  two-thirds  ascriptive  and  one-third  adverbial  (no 
marks  of  the  "We"  document,  but  intensely  Jewish). 

Possibly  19:1-20  (Pauline  miracles  in  Ephesus)  is  not  from  the 
"We"  document.  It  contains  60  per  cent,  ascriptive  and  40  per  cent, 
adverbial,  with  an  average  of  i8|  per  page,  which  facts  probably  show  that 
it  is  from  a  Hellenistic-Christian  source  but  freely  worked  over  by  the 
author. 

21 :  206-26  (Paul's  vow  at  James's  suggestion)  has  40  per  cent,  ascrip- 
tive and  60  per  cent,  adverbial,  with  an  average  of  17  per  page.  Hence 
the  section  is  probably  from  a  Jewish-Christian  source  freely  worked  over. 

22:1-21,  with  an  average  of  24-f-,  but  50  per  cent,  ascriptive,  and  only 
41  per  cent,  adverbial,  is  doubtful  as  to  source.  It  may  be  a  part  of  the 
"We"  document,  but  the  participial  usage  is  against  the  supposition.  It 
is  more  probable,  according  to  participial  usage,  that  it  is  from  a  tradition 
told  first  by  Paul  in  Aramaic  and  then  freely  worked  over  by  the  author  of 
the  book. 

23:1-10,  with  an  average  of  ca.  18,  but  42!?  per  cent,  ascriptive,  574- 
per  cent,  adverbial,  has  a  somewhat  Hebraistic  tone,  but  seems  to  be  a  free 
composition  by  a  non-Jewish  writer. 

Chaps.  25  and  26  (see  p.  55)  have  a  low  average,  15^,  but  probably  the 
presence  of  addresses  and  the  absence  of  pure  narrative  throughout  account 
for  this.  But  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials  is  similar  to 
that  of  the  "We"  document  from  which  they  probably  are  taken. 

The  account  of  Paul's  conversion  in  26:9-18,  according  to  participial 
usage,  seems  to  be  nearer  to  the  story  as  (probably)  told  by  Paul  than 
either  9:1-19  or  22:4-16,  the  average  being  only  14$.     Yet,  there  is  a 


SOURCES  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE        67 

great  change  in  the  account  as  worked  over  by  the  author,  which  is  shown 
by  the  large  percentage  of  adverbials  (see  p.  20  for  facts).  The  parti- 
cipial usage  does  not  at  all  make  it  clear  that  the  accounts  of  Paul's  con- 
version in  chaps.  22  and  26  belong  to  the  "We"  document.  It  seems  to 
suggest  the  Pauline  manner  of  telling  the  story  modified  by  the  author. 

28:17-31,  though  having  a  smaller  average,  which  is  largely  due  to  the 
Septuagint  quotation,  is  strikingly  similar  in  participial  usage  to  the  "We" 
document.     This  section  may  be  based  on  it,  or  on  tradition. 

RECAPITULATION    OF    THE    SOURCE    HYPOTHESIS    IN    HARMONY    WITH    THE 
PARTICIPIAL   USAGE 

First,  the  Jewish-Christian  written  source  includes  1  :i2 — 5:18,  34-42; 
10:1 — 11:18;   15:1-35;   16:1-5  (?)>   21:206-26. 

Secondly,  the  Hellenistic-Christian  written  source,  chaps.  6-8;  11:19- 
30  (?);    19:11-20  (?). 

Thirdly,  the  "We"  document,  chaps.  13  and  14;  15:36-41;  16:6 — 
21:20a  (perhaps,  excepting  19:11-20);  21:27 — 26:32  (perhaps,  excepting 
22:1-21;  23:1-10  [?];  26:9-18)  and  27:1 — 28:16. 

Fourthly,  unwritten  source,  Jewish-Christian  tradition,  1 : 1-1 1 ;  5:17— 
33>  9:i~3i,  32-43;  19:11-20  (?);  22:1-21;  26:9-18;  28:17-31  (possibly 
23:1-10). 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE 
PARTICIPIAL  USAGE 

Sec.  97.     Preliminary  Statement 

The  New  Testament  scholarship  of  the  world  has  been  for  nearly  half 
a  century,  and  is  now,  divided  on  the  Lukan  authorship  of  the  Book  of 
Acts.  For  the  Lukan  authorship  stand  Credner,  B.  Weiss,  Klostermann, 
Renan,  Hobart,  Ramsay,  Hawkins  (Sir  John),  Plummer,  Vogel,  Blass, 
Harnack,  Zahn,  Ropes,  Burkitt  (F.  C),  etc. 

On  the  other  hand,  against  the  Lukan  authorship  stand  Konigsmann, 
De  Wette,  Baur,  Zeller,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann  (H.  J.),  Overbeck,  Haus- 
rath,  Weizsacker,  Wendt,  Schiirer,  Pfleiderer,  von  Soden,  Spitta,  Julicher, 
J.  Weiss,  Knopf,  C.  Clemen,  McGiffert,  etc.  Sorof  thinks  Timothy  is 
the  author. 

Now  let  us  see  what  light  is  thrown  upon  this  problem  by  the  parti- 
cipial usage. 

Sec.  98.  Is  the  Author  of  the  Third  Gospel  the  Author  of  the 
Book  of  Acts  ? 

From  the  facts  stated  on  pp.  19,  20,  and  23,  we  make  the  following 
observations: 

First,  the  average  in  the  Third  Gospel  is  nearer  to  that  of  the  first  por- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Acts  than  to  that  of  the  whole  book. 

Secondly,  the  ratio  between  the  three  great  classes  of  participles  in  the 
Third  Gospel  is  much  nearer  to  that  of  the  first  portion  than  to  that  of  the 
whole  book  (however,  the  only  very  significant  difference  is  the  different 
percentage  of  adverbial  and  complementary  participles). 

Thirdly,  the  average  in  the  Third  Gospel  is  much  smaller  than  in  the 
second  portion  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Fourthly,  the  ratio  between  ascriptive,  adverbial,  and  complementary 
participles  in  the  Third  Gospel  differs  considerably  from  that  in  the  second 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Fifthly,  the  average  and  the  ratio  of  ascriptives  and  adverbials  in  the 
Third  Gospel  differ  slightly  from  the  average  and  ratio  of  ascriptives  and 
adverbials  in  the  whole  Book  of  Acts. 

From  these  observations  we  see  how  easily  eminent  scholars  differ  as  to 
the  style  and  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  It  remains  for  us  to  weigh 
the  probabilities  growing  out  of  the  above  differences  and  agreements. 

68 


AUTHORSHIP  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE    69 

Must  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  and  of  the  Third  Gospel  be  the  same 
writer,  according  to  participial  usage  (the  conclusion  reached  by  Harnack 
on  the  basis  of  general  style  and  diction)  ?  Or  must  we  predicate  different 
authors  for  the  two  books  because  of  the  different  participial  usage  observed 
above  ? 

There  are  three  facts  to  be  held  in  mind  in  answering  these  questions: 

First,  the  Third  Gospel  is  more  dependent  on  Jewish-Christian  (doubt- 
less written)  sources  than  is  the  Book  of  Acts.  It  is  true  that  much  of  Acts, 
chaps.  1-12,  seems  to  be  based  on  Jewish-Christian  sources  and  so  is  influ- 
enced by  the  Hebraistic  style  characteristic  of  such  sources.  But  the 
proportion  of  material  in  the  Book  of  Acts  coming  from  Jewish-Christian 
written  sources  is  much  smaller  than  in  the  Third  Gospel. 

Secondly,  the  Book  of  Acts  is  more  strictly  narrative  than  the  Third 
Gospel,  which  fact  naturally  affects  the  style  of  the  same  author  (tested 
by  us  in  classical  authors,  as  well  as  in  Acts).  Though  there  are  many 
addresses  reported  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  the  most  of  them  are  short,  and  the 
great  mass  of  the  book  is  narrative  of  tours  and  movements  of  missionary 
work. 

Thirdly,  the  author  in  the  Third  Gospel  seems  to  reproduce  his  sources 
more  rigidly  than  the  author  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  This  is  specially  true 
in  chaps.  1  and  2  (except  preface),  but  even  in  the  rest  of  the  book  the 
author  is  influenced  (apparently)  by  the  Hebraistic  tone  of  his  sources. 
The  preface  is  good  Greek.  This  proves  that  the  author  could,  when 
untrammeled  by  his  sources,  write  good  Greek,  and  it  also  proves  (probably) 
that  in  the  rest  of  the  book  where  the  Greek  is  less  pure  the  author  is  more 
or  less  influenced  by  the  style  of  his  sources. 

Then  what  bearing  have  these  three  propositions,  combined  with  the 
above  observations,  on  the  authorship  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Book 
of  Acts?  The  more  rigid  adherence  to  Jewish-Christian  sources  in  the 
Third  Gospel  and  the  presence  of  more  narrative  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
would  help  to  explain  the  differences  observed  above.  That  is,  the  differ- 
ences of  participial  usage  in  the  two  books  can  easily  be  explained  by  the 
nature  of  the  sources,  the  apparent  method  of  the  author  in  dealing  with 
these  sources  in  the  two  books,  and  by  the  literary  character  of  the  pro- 
ductions. Hence  the  differences  of  participial  usage  between  the  two 
books  are  not  evidence  against  the  unity  of  authorship  for  the  two  books. 
On  the  contrary,  the  similarity  between  the  participial  usage  of  the  two 
books  is  so  great,  notwithstanding  different  kinds  of  sources  in  the  two, 
as  to  point  unmistakably  to  one  author  for  the  two  books. 


70  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

Sec.  99.    Is  the  Author  of  the  "We"  Passages  the  Author  of  the 
Book  of  Acts  ? 

The  scholars  who  deny  the  Lukan  authorship  (see  Sec.  97),  as  a  rule, 
answer  in  the  negative.  What  light  does  the  participial  usage  throw  upon 
this  question  ?  On  the  following  page  we  submit  a  table  giving  the  facts 
for  the  "We"  passages  and  their  immediate  contexts,  precedent  and 
subsequent;  also  giving  the  facts  for  eleven  sections  in  Luke,  chaps. 
10-19  (record  of  Perean  ministry),  of  corresponding  lengths  and  relations 
as  to  position. 

Sec.  100.     Observations  on  Table  on  Page  71 

First,  there  is  a  marked  similarity  in  average  between  the  "We"  passages 
and  their  immediate  contexts,  precedent  and  subsequent  (except  the  27 
lines  following  20:16  which  include  the  address  of  James  and  the  elders  in 
Jerusalem  to  Paul,  which  fact  doubtless  accounts  for  the  small  average). 
Of  course,  the  average  of  the  "We"  passages  (23)  is  somewhat  greater  than 
that  of  the  contexts,  but  the  fact  that  they  are  pure  narrative  may  account 
for  this. 

Secondly,  the  averages  in  the  eleven  sections  of  corresponding  length 
in  the  Third  Gospel  show  greater  variations  (from  7^  to  i8f  per  page, 
though  all  concede  these  sections  in  the  Perean  ministry  to  be  the  compo- 
sition of  one  author  based  on  one  source  [largely])  than  do  the  "We" 
passages  and  their  contexts  (from  n-£  to  25^). 

Thirdly,  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  in  the  "We"  passages  and  their 
contexts  varies  from  8  per  cent,  to  41  §  (over  5  to  1),  but  the  percentage 
of  ascriptives  in  the  corresponding  sections  of  the  Third  Gospel  varies 
from  n^  to  7if  (over  6  to  1). 

Fourthly,  the  percentage  of  adverbials  in  the  "We"  passages  and  their 
contexts  varies  from  54T6r  to  92  (ca.  70  per  cent,  of  variation)  while  in  the 
sections  tested  in  Luke,  chaps.  10-19,  tne  variation  ranges  from  41  to 
88|  per  cent,  (over  100  per  cent.). 

Fifthly,  the  percentage  of  complementary  participles  in  the  "We" 
passages  and  their  contexts  varies  from  zero  to  7!,  while  that  in  the  sec- 
tions of  the  Third  Gospel  varies  from  zero  to  14  f. 

Sixthly,  hence  there  is  greater  similarity  of  participial  usage  between  the 
"We"  passages  and  their  contexts  than  we  find  in  sections  of  corresponding 
length  in  Luke,  chaps.  10-19. 

Seventhly,  if  we  consider  the  similarity  between  the  average  and  ratio 
of  ascriptives  and  adverbials  in  the  "We"  passages  and  their  contexts  as 
compared  with  those  of  the  first  portion,  we  notice  that  this  similarity  is 


AUTHORSHIP  OF  BOOK  OF  ACTS  IN  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE      7 1 


^     ..*. 

"5.2 

•       •     >*      •   00       •       •       •       •     H    <N     Tf 

E  8 

.        ,     H        •                 .... 

0 

US 

"3 

O 

"3 

&5 

H 

'JS 

OctKOlt-            D'rt                                 ^t-            ^M^N 

b 

oco-*i-iwOotNi—  ao  10 

id 

> 
< 

OCO    m    ^t  ■*  lo  r^vO    10  u-jvO    10 

X 

w 
> 

w 

W 

a 
•c 
M 

O      M      H      O    O      O      -+00      N      ^*©     O 

tJ-h    t^i^iomN    <r>  >*  ro  ro  ■+• 

Q 

< 

§ 

„ 

u 

0 

W 
H 

rt 

HrJ                    *Hh           <*#!*»-*<  1C|<C          C*J 

t^.^O00    tOMOO    LOO    11  OO 

< 

5 

w 

•  "oj 

:  o< 

c5 

.S    C    u- 

g>w> 

g=fci)^ 

^0 

h   % 

0,0 

cj-t3">  ""0">  SJ*r">  c  <u-n 

|S 

isuoa^oat-'C       Si  '^ 

<   h" 

-tntn     -tnwi     -01  m     -  0*5 

c/3     Ui 

Ah   ^ 

■as 

O     M     H     Tj-    t^MOO     OOO     tl     ° 

-    y. 

MMMHWNMTfrJ-MMCq 

w   _ 
^     0 

ig 

S! H         «.    * 

Eg 

•         .         •         ■     XT)      .         •     ^tO     1"     N't 

B  J 

d  a 

0               a  «'  e 

0 

0  2 

_ 

^ 

,,   Q 

w   £ 

,0 

OOO    N    Ov  "+   O    iTj-i-vO    Ororo  t^OO 

\0    m  O^O  00  O  00    m>0  00    NN  to^O 

13 

PS 

►J    a; 
<    0 

U 

£ 

S  u 

■a 

two       nlo             Hn-HH»«*i    1-1       *%*-« 

0 

OwoOOMOOO    0*0    ^t  too 

H 

tf 

< 

Ch 

W 

0 

Jo 

a 

O  00    Os  lo  O    -    rovo  -O    ^-  u->  O-   lt.  !„ 

0 

Ml-lf-lCJMt-lOJMl-ltSMMlHM 

1 

< 

e 

H 

< 

Pi 

H 

ifl 

U 

bC 

iJ 

1 

g>bb 

^§= 

g^bb 

-5  e 

w 

pa 

< 

On 

"3  -5 

u    O 

•0    O  *£ 

8.2  5  j 

j? 

r- 

.SJ 

a£oo,„a  o.*1- 

H 

m  .S  .S  1U.S  .S  h  .S  .S  i  —  —  -c  -^ 

< 

)     M     M     C 

n  t^  1- 

0  0  I- 

"*«(£ 

3  s 

pLnPq 

72  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF    ACTS 

remarkable,  except  in  the  few  sections  influenced  by  the  Jewish-Christian 
sources,  or  by  the  literary  character  of  the  section  (that  is,  whether  it  is 
address,  narrative,  etc.). 

Eighthly,  we  observe  furthermore  that  the  dissimilarity  between  the 
"We"  passages  and  their  contexts  as  compared  with  the  whole  Book  of 
Acts  is  not  much  greater  than  the  dissimilarity  between  the  eleven  sections 
in  the  Third  Gospel  as  compared  with  the  whole  Third  Gospel.  There  is 
a  somewhat  greater  difference  in  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adver- 
bials  and  in  the  average  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  but  this  is  probably  due  to  the 
Jewish-  and  Hellenistic-Christian  written  sources  which  play  a  conspic- 
uous part  in  chaps.  1-12. 

Ninthly,  conclusion:  From  these  facts  it  is  not  to  be  asserted  dog- 
matically that  the  participial  usage  of  the  Book  of  Acts  proves  that  the 
author  of  the  "We"  passages  is  also  the  author  of  the  book,  and  yet  the 
participial  usage  is  not  at  all  in  favor  of  different  authors  for  the  book  and 
the  "We"  sections.  So  the  participial  usage  seems  to  substantiate,  in  a 
collateral  way,  the  conclusion  that  the  original  author  of  the  "We"  sections 
is  also  the  final  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Sec.  1 01.  Is  the  Author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  the  Companion  of 
Paul  Called  Luke  the  Physician? 

On  this  question  the  participle  has  no  direct  answer.  The  theology  of 
Paul  may  have  influenced  Luke's  thinking  and  the  matter  of  his  books, 
but  it  is  quite  sure,  from  participial  usage,  that  Paul's  manner  of  writing 
did  not  impress  itself  on  him.  See  on  p.  23  how  far  different  is  the  parti- 
cipial usage  of  Paul,  of  the  Third  Gospel,  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 

If  Luke  the  physician  and  missionary  companion  of  Paul  be  the  author 
of  the  Third  Gospel,  then  it  is  very  likely,  from  the  participial  usage,  that  he 
is  the  author  of  the  "We"  sections  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

COMPOSITION    OF   THE   ADDRESSES    IN   THE   BOOK    OF    ACTS     IN 
THE  LIGHT  OF  PARTICIPIAL  USAGE 

Sec.  102.  Preliminary  Statement 
There  are  many  addresses  in  the  Book  of  Acts  presented  (apparently) 
as  if  composed  originally  by  Peter,  Gamaliel,  Stephen,  James,  Paul,  Felix, 
Festus,  etc.  Is  the  participial  usage  of  these  addresses  different  from  that 
of  the  rest  of  the  book,  or  is  there  a  striking  similarity  which  suggests  the 
free  composition  of  these  addresses  by  the  author  of  the  book?  In  the 
Pauline  addresses  does  the  style  resemble  the  style  of  Paul's  letters  closely 
enough  to  lead  us  to  conclude  that  Paul  himself  composed  these  addresses 
and  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  simply  reproduced  them  in  his  book, 
or  is  the  style  so  similar  to  that  of  the  rest  of  the  book  as  to  compel  us  to 
conclude  that  the  author  of  the  book  freely  composed  the  addresses  (of 
course,  using  Pauline  material  as  the  basis)  ? 

For  the  facts  of  participial  usage  in  the  addresses  see  pp.  19  and  20. 

Sec.  102.    Composition  of  the  Petrine  Addresses 

From  the  facts  on  p.  19  we  make  the  following  observations: 

First,  the  average  in  them  is  11  f -K 

Secondly,  the  lowest  average,  6  (except  that  in  the  short  address  to 
Simon  Magus  which  is  too  short  to  use  in  an  argument),  is  in  the  address 
to  the  Jerusalem  Conference,  and  the  highest  average  is  in  the  address  to 
Cornelius'  household  (17^). 

Thirdly,  the  average  of  ascriptives  in  all  his  addresses  is  48J  per  cent., 
the  lowest  being  zero  (address  at  the  Jerusalem  Conference) ,  the  highest 
being  100  per  cent,  (address  to  Sanhedrin  before  his  imprisonment). 
Leaving  these  extremes,  the  percentage  of  ascriptives  ranges  from  33$ 
to  75  per  cent.,  and  thus  shows  great  variation. 

Fourthly,  the  average  of  adverbials  in  all  his  addresses  is  41  §,  the 
lowest  being  zero  (to  the  Sanhedrin  before  imprisonment),  the  highest 
being  100  (at  Jerusalem  Conference),  while  the  rest  of  the  Petrine  addresses 
range  fairly  well  about  the  general  average  (4if).  Still  the  variations  here 
are  great. 

Fifthly,  in  these  addresses  are  no  complementary  participles,  except  in 
the  short  address  to  Simon  Magus  (only  one  participle,  and  that  comple- 
mentary in  indirect  discourse),  and  in  the  address  to  the  apostles  and  the 
Jerusalem  church,  chap.  11,  in  which  415  per  cent,  of  the  participles  are 

73 


74  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

complementary,  the  large  percentage  being  due  largely  to  the  telling  of  the 
visions. 

Can  we  from  these  facts  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusion  as  to  the  com- 
position of  the  Petrine  addresses  ?  Did  the  author  of  First  Peter  compose 
these  addresses  and  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  reproduce  them  in  his 
book  ?  First  Peter  has  an  average  of  15!  participles  per  page,  55  per  cent, 
ascriptive  and  45  per  cent,  adverbial.  The  ratio  between  the  ascriptives 
and  adverbials  is  about  the  same  in  the  Petrine  addresses  and  in  First  Peter 
(55  to  45  m  First  Peter,  48$  to  41  §  in  the  Petrine  addresses).  Of  course, 
the  presence  of  so  many  complementary  participles  in  the  Petrine  addresses 
is  largely  due  to  the  visions  described,  as  is  shown  by  the  absence  of  any 
complementary  participles  from  the  most  of  the  Petrine  addresses.  The 
style  agrees  fairly  well  with  that  of  First  Peter  in  which  is  not  found  one 
complementary  participle.  But,  since  it  is  not  certain  according  to  many 
New  Testament  scholars  that  Peter  the  apostle  wrote  First  Peter,  this 
comparison  of  the  participial  usage  of  the  Petrine  addresses  and  First 
Peter  cannot  bring  us  to  any  definite  conclusion. 

Again,  let  us  compare  the  participial  usage  of  the  Petrine  addresses  with 
the  first  portion  in  which  they  are  all  (except  one)  imbedded.  The  average 
in  chaps.  1-12  is  15^,  with  34 ^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  57I  per  cent,  adverbial, 
ca.  7!  per  cent,  complementary.  The  average  for  the  Petrine  addresses  is 
nf +  ,  with  48^  per  cent,  ascriptive,  4i§  per  cent,  adverbial,  10  per  cent, 
complementary.  That  is,  the  average  in  the  addresses  is  over  3  per  cent, 
lower  than  that  in  chaps.  1-12.  This  average  is  not  necessarily  against 
the  free  composition  of  the  Petrine  addresses  by  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Acts,  because  addresses  usually  have  a  lower  average,  even  when  writ- 
ten by  the  same  author,  than  pure  narrative. 

But  the  ratio  between  the  ascriptives  and  adverbials  suggests  a  different 
conclusion.  In  the  Petrine  addresses  the  ratio  is  48 J  to  41  §,  while  in  the 
first  portion  it  is  34-^  to  57I.  That  is,  the  author  in  the  addresses  shows 
a  Jewish-Greek  style  (the  majority  of  the  participles  being  ascriptive) 
while  the  Petrine  portion  approaches  more  nearly  to  the  participial  usage 
of  a  classical  or  koivt/j  writer.  Yet,  it  is  to  be  noted,  from  the  table  on  p.  19, 
that  the  address  from  Solomon's  Porch  resembles  more  closely  the  later 
chapters,  13-28.  Also  the  address  to  the  apostles  and  Jerusalem  church, 
chap.  11,  has  the  participial  tone  of  chaps.  13-28.  Hence,  we  may  con- 
clude: 

First,  as  to  the  number  of  participles,  the  composition  of  the  Petrine 
addresses  might  be  either  that  of  the  author  of  First  Peter,  or  of  the  author 
of  chaps.  1-12. 


COMPOSITION   OF   ADDRESSES    IN   THE   BOOK    OF   ACTS  75 

Secondly,  as  to  the  ratio  between  ascriptives  and  adverbials,  the  parti- 
cipial usage  of  the  addresses  is  very  different  from  that  of  chaps.  1-12,  and 
so  suggests  that,  if  the  author  of  the  book  did  freely  compose  the  Petrine 
addresses,  he  either  assumed  a  Jewish-Greek  style,  or  followed  closely  a 
Jewish-Christian  source  for  the  addresses. 
Sec.  104.     Composition  of  the  Addresses  of  Gamaliel  and  Stephen 

The  former  (p.  19)  averages  only  2\  participles  per  page,  containing 
only  one  (adverbial)  participle.  This  address  seems  to  be  a  free  composition 
of  the  author,  yet  the  style  is  not  strikingly  that  of  the  author,  and  surely  the 
low  average  would  suggest  a  Jewish  composition  (Gamaliel's). 

The  address  of  Stephen  has  the  Jewish  tone  as  to  average  (1 1  j1^)  but  the 
ratio  of  ascriptives  and  adverbials,  34^  to  59^,  resembles  closely  the  style 
of  chaps.  1-12.  It  is  probable  from  these  figures  that  the  author  had  a 
Hellenistic-Christian  written  source,  but  worked  it  over  somewhat  to  suit 
the  purpose  of  his  book. 

Sec.  105.    The  Composition  of  the  Pauline  Addresses 

We  make  the  following  observations  from  facts  on  pp.  19  and  20: 

First,  the  average  of  all  the  Pauline  addresses  is  ca.  17^,  the  lowest 
being  9  (address  to  the  ship's  crew  in  the  storm)  and  the  highest  (address 
to  the  Lystrans)  being  25^  per  page.  These  are  both  short  addresses. 
The  longer  addresses  range  fairly  well  about  the  general  average. 

Secondly,  the  average  for  ascriptives  in  the  Pauline  addresses  is  39^ 
per  cent.,  the  lowest  being  zero  (address  to  Jews  in  Rome)  and  the  highest 
60  per  cent,  (address  in  Pisidian  Antioch).  The  rest  swing  fairly  well 
about  the  general  average,  except  the  address  before  Felix  with  7-^  per 
cent,  ascriptive  and  the  address  to  the  Athenians  with  20  per  cent,  ascriptive. 

Thirdly,  the  average  of  adverbials  in  the  Pauline  addresses  is  54^  per 
cent.,  the  lowest  being  40  per  cent,  (address  in  Pisidian  Antioch)  and  the 
highest  100  per  cent,  (address  to  Jews  in  Rome).  The  percentage  of  the 
rest  of  the  Pauline  addresses  swings  in  moderate  proximity  about  their 
general  average  (except  the  address  to  the  Athenians  with  its  excessive  80 
per  cent,  adverbials). 

Fourthly,  only  three  out  of  the  nine  Pauline  addresses  contain  com- 
plementary participles,  the  lowest  being  54  per  cent.,  the  highest  30} -§,  the 
other  30^  per  cent. 

Fifthly,  according  to  facts  on  p.  23,  we  observe  that  Paul's  average  in 
Galatians,  I  Corinthians,  and  Romans  is  ca.  9,  with  about  three-fourths 
ascriptives,  one-fourth  adverbials,  and  scarcely  any  complementary  parti- 
ciples. 


76  THE   PARTICIPLE   IN  THE   BOOK   OF   ACTS 

Hence  we  conclude  from  these  facts  and  observations: 
First,  the  participial  usage  in  the  Pauline  addresses  is  strongly  non- 
Pauline — almost  anti-Pauline. 

Secondly,  it  is  likely  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  freely  worked 
over  the  matter  of  the  Pauline  addresses  and  thus  left  on  them  the  stamp 
of  his  own  style  rather  than  that  of  Paul.  In  a  few  of  these  addresses 
(especially  in  that  in  Pisidian  Antioch,  that  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  that  to 
the  Jewish  people  in  Aramaic,  and  that  to  the  Lystrans)  the  style  has  some 
Pauline  marks,  yet  the  participial  usage  in  these  addresses  resembles  too 
closely  that  of  the  author  to  be  regarded  as  the  actual  composition  of  Paul 
reproduced  by  the  author. 

Sec.  106.  The  Composition  of  the  Non-Christian  Addresses 
These  are  by  Demetrius  to  the  workmen  of  Ephesus,  by  the  town- 
clerk  of  Ephesus,  by  Tertullus  against  Paul,  by  Festus  to  Agrippa,  and 
include  also  Lysias'  letter  to  Felix.  We  have  no  other  literary  productions 
from  these  men  with  which  to  compare  these  addresses.  See  p.  20  for 
facts.  We  observe  that  the  usage  of  the  participle  in  these  addresses  is 
remarkably  similar  to  that  of  chaps.  13-28,  and  this  suggests  their  free 
composition  by  the  author  of  the  book. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

GREEK   GRAMMARS 

Winer-Moulton,  New   Testament  Grammar.     1882.     Based  on   G.   B.   Winer, 

Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms.     1822;    1855. 
Hadley  and  Allen,  Greek  Grammar.     1884;   1889. 
Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,     i860;   1890. 
Kuehner,  Griechische  Grammatik.     1890. 
Monro,  A  Grammar  of  the  Homeric  Dialect.     1891. 
Burton,  Syntax  of  the  Moods  and  Tenses  in  New  Testament  Greek.    1893;   fifth 

ed.,  1903. 
Jannaris,  Historical  Greek  Grammar.     1897. 
Babbitt,  Greek  Grammar.     1902. 
John  Thompson,  A  Greek  Grammar.     1902. 

Buttmann,  Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms.     1859. 
Blass,  Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Griechisch.    1896.    Zweite  Auflage,  1902. 
Brugmann-Delbriick,    Vergleichende   Syntax   der    indogermanischen    Sprachen. 

Zweiter  Theil.     Strassburg,  1897. 
Winer-Schmiedel,  Winers  Grammatik  des  neutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms.     8. 

Auflage.     1 894-. 
Viteau,  Syntaxe  des  Propositions.     1893. 
Viteau,  Etude  sur  le  Grec  du  Nouveau  Testament.     1896. 
J.  H.  Moulton,  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek,  Vol.  I,  Prolegomena.     1906. 

WORKS   OF  INTRODUCTION   ON  ACTS 

Bleek,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1862.    2.  Aufl.,  1870.    4.  Aufl.,  1886. 

Hilgenfeld,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1875. 

Holtzmann,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1885.     3.  Aufl.,  1892. 

B.  Weiss,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1889.     Dritte  Aufl.,  1897. 

Zahn,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1897.     Zweite  Aufl.,  1900. 

Davidson,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1882. 

Reuss,  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testamenles.    1842.    6.  Aufl., 

1887. 
Salmon,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1892.     9th  ed.,  1899. 
Bacon,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.     1900. 
Juelicher,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament.     1894.     5.  and  6.  Aufl.,  1906. 

COMMENTARIES   AND   HISTORIES   OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

H.  Holtzmann,  Die  A postol geschichte  im  Hand-Commentar  zum  Neuen  Testa- 
ment.    1889.     Dritte  Aufl.,  1901. 
Rackham,  Commentary  on  Acts.     1901. 

Wendt,  Apostelgeschichte,  Meyer  Kommentar.     8.  Aufl.,  1899. 

77 


78  THE    PARTICIPLE    IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 

Weizsacker,  Das  aposlolische  Zeitalter  der  christlichen  Kirche.     1886.     3.  Aufl., 

1902. 
McGiffert,  A  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age.     1897. 
Bartlet,  The  Apostolic  Age.     1899. 
Ropes,  The  Apostolic  Age.     1906. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Harnack,  Die  Chronologie  der  altchristlichen  Litteratur  bis  Eusebius  (Geschichte 

der  altchrist.  Lit.,  II,  I).     1897. 
Harnack,  Lukas  der  Arzt  der  Ver/asser  des  dritten  Evangeliums  und  Apostelge- 

schichte.     1906. 
Harnack,  Die  Apostelgeschichle.     1908. 
C.  Clemen,  Die  Chronologie  der  Paulinischen  Briefe.     1893. 
J.  Weiss,  Ueber  die  Absicht  und  der  literarische  Charakter  der  Apostelgeschichle. 

1897. 
Spitta,  Apostelgeschichle.     1891. 

Bethge,  Die  Paulinischen  Reden  der  Apostelgeschichle.     1887. 
Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu.     1898. 

Lekebusch,  Die  Composition  und  Entstehung  der  Apostelgeschichle.     1854. 
Deissmann,  Bibelstudien,  1895;  Neue  Bibelstudien,  1897. 
Deissmann,  New  Lights  on  Biblical  Greek.     1908. 

Thumb,  Die  griechische  Sprache  im  Zeitalter  des  Hellenismus,  chap.  v.     1901. 
Kretschmer,  Die  Entstehung  der  Koine.     1900. 
Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lucas.     1894. 
Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveler.     1896. 
Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire.     1894. 
Ramsay,  Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  etc.     1907. 
Chase,  The  Credibility  of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     1902. 
Plummer,  Commentary  on  Luke  ("International  Critical  Commentary").     1896. 

Introduction,  §6. 
Hawkins,  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  148-54.     1899. 

Burkitt,  F.  C,  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  chap.  iv.     1906. 
Simcox,  Language  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  122-34.     1890. 
Hobart,  Medical  Language  in  St.  Luke.     1882. 
Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek.     1889. 
Kennedy,  Sources  of  New  Testament  Greek.     1895. 
Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "Acts"  (Headlam);   "Language  of  the 

New  Testament"  (Thayer). 
Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Acts"  (Schmiedel). 

MAGAZINE   ARTICLES 

Theologische  Rundschau,  1897-98,  pp.  371;    1900,  pp.  50  f.;    1901,  pp.  66  f.; 
1903,  pp.  79  f.;   1904,  pp.  278  f.  (C.  Clemen  reviews  literature  on  Apostelge- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  79 

schichte);  1899,  pp.  47  f.,  83  f.,  129  f.  (H.  Heitmiiller  reviews  literature  on 
Die  Qucllenfrage  in  der  Apostelgeschichte);  1902,  pp.  58  f.  (Deissmann, 
Die  Sprache  der  griechischen  Bibel);  April,  1907  (C.  Clemen  replies  to 
Harnack  on  Lukas  der  Arzt). 

Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  1895,  pp.  65  f.,  186  f.,  384  f., 
481  f.;  1896,  pp.  24  f.,  177  f.,  351  f.,  517  f.  (a  series  of  eight  articles  by  Hil- 
genfeld  on  Die  Apostelgeschichte  nach  ihren  Quell en-Schrifte  untersucht). 

Theologische  Literaturzeilung,  1906,  p.  466  (Harnack  replies  to  Schiirer  on  "Lukas 
der  Arzt"). 

Zeitschrift  fiir  protestantische  Theologie,  1890  (Feine,  "Die  alte  Quelle  in  der 
ersten  Halfte  der  Apostelgeschichte"). 

Theologische  Studien  und  Kriliken,  1873  (Kahler,  "Die  Reden  des  Petrus  in  der 
Apostelgeschichte  " ) . 

Classical  Review,  XV,  31-38,  434-42;  XVIII,  106-12,  151-55  (J.  H.  Moulton, 
"Grammatical  Notes  from  the  Papyri"). 

American  Journal  0}  Philology,  I,  45  f.  (Gildersleeve,  Encroachments  of  a»5  on 
ov  in  Later  Greek");  IV,  291  f.  (W.  J.  Alexander,  "Participial  Periphrases 
in  Attic  Prose");  VI,  310  f.  (Spieker,  "Genitive  Absolute  in  Attic  Orators"); 
IX,  137  f.  (Gildersleeve,  "On  the  Stylistic  Effect  of  the  Greek  Parti- 
ciple"). 

Transactions  of  the  American  Philological  Association,  IV,  45  f.  (W.  A.  Stevens, 
"The  Substantive  Use  of  the  Greek  Participle");  XII,  88  f.  (T.  D. 
Seymour,  "The  Use  of  the  Greek  Aorist  Participle"). 

American  Journal  of  Theology,  July,  1907  ("Bacon  on  Acts  vs.  Galatians"). 

Biblical  World,  I,  pp.  163  f.  (editorial  on  "N.  T.  Grammar");  VI,  39  f.  (Burton  on 
"The  Book  of  Acts");  X,  350  f.  (Mathews  reviews  McGiffert's  Apostolic 
Age);  XVII,  355  f.  (Bumstead,  "Acts:  the  Present  State  of  Criticism"); 
XIX,  190  f.  (J.  H.  Moulton,  "New  Lights  on  Biblical  Greek");  XIX,  238  f. 
(Review  of  Warfield's  Speeches  in  Acts  in  Bible  Student,  January,  1902); 
XIX,  268  f.  (Bartlet,  "The  Character  and  Composition  of  Acts");  XIX, 
414  f.,  423  f.  (Editorial,  "Notes  and  Comments  on  Portions  of  Acts");  XX, 
260  f.,  370  f.  (Knowling,  "The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke");  XXII, 
3  f.  (Editorial  on  "The  Lucan  Writings"). 

The  Expositor,  fifth  series,  Vol.  I,  129  f.,  212  f.  (Ramsay  reviews  Blass  on  the  two 
editions  of  Acts);  Vol.  VII,  1  f.  (Ramsay  on  "The  Authorship  of  Acts");  sixth 
series,  Vol.  Ill,  271  f.,  Vol.  VII,  104  f.,  Vol.  VIII,  423  f.  (J.  H.  Moulton, 
"Notes  from  the  Papyri");  seventh  series,  Vol.  II,  481  f.,  Vol.  Ill,  97  f. 
(Ramsay  reviews  Harnack's  Luke  the  Physician,  etc.);  Vol.  IV,  289  f. 
(Deissmann,  "The  Philology  of  the  Greek  Bible"). 

The  Expository  Times,  Vol.  VIII,  166  f.  (Tasker  reviews  Zockler  on  "The 
Recent  Criticism  of  Acts");  Vol.  IX,  272  f.  (Banks  reviews  Deissmann's 
Bibelstudien  and  Neue  Bibelstudien);  XVII,  450  f.  (Kennedy  reviews 
Moulton's  Prolegomena). 


8o 


THE    PARTICIPLE   IN   THE    BOOK    OF   ACTS 


In  addition  to  the  above  the  following  texts  have  been  used:  Wescott  and 
Hort,  The  New  Testament  in  Greek,  the  texts  and  editions  mentioned  in  the 
treatise  for  Homer,  Sophocles,  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  Thucydides,  Demosthenes, 
Plato,  Polybius,  Strabo,  the  Septuagint  (including  Second  Maccabees),  Josephus, 
Plutarch,  and  Tischendorf,  Novum  Testamentum  Graece,  Octava  Editio. 


OF  THE 

srf* 


H 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDDSM7blS7 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO— »      202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BEL 

OW 

FORM  NO.  DD6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


